Subject:
RE: 67 markers
From: bunnellfamily@t-online.de (John and Heather
Bunnell)
To: <Charlie@bunnellfamily.com>,
<BNL_dna@kbsb.com>
Date:
Charlie and Steve, (some formatting & editing by slb BNL_dna@kbsb.com lu:070525.1607)
I don't
know what your plans are for the next newsletter, but I thought it might be a
good idea to highlight the great deal that we have discovered to date from the
DNA project.
I
have been playing around with my own modification of the spreadsheet,
which I will attach. {here-> Bunnell_DNA_070114_JGB.xls)
As I see it, here is what we now know:
1) There is a clear, predominant marker pattern among the known descendants of the original William Bunnell. Although we don't yet have enough data point to verify it, this allows us to at least develop a "working hypothesis" that the predominant pattern was the exact DNA pattern of the original William. This allows us to start mapping the unique markers that developed later in time. Whenever we compare the markers of two modern-day descendants, we can have one of three possible solutions. 1) If the descendants share a common mutation, we can surmise that this mutation was present at or before where ever their lineage meets. 2) If the modern-day descendants do not share any "non-baseline" common markers, and if the "Bunnell/Bonnell baseline" markers are resident on the other individuals, then we can surmise that the unique mutated markers appeared after their common ancestry point. In this case, we can further surmise that all the ancestors between the common ancestor point and William had "Bunnell/Bonnell baseline" markers. 3) If the modern-day descendants have unique but non-equivalent "non-baseline" markers, then we would need more data to understand the DNA pattern of their first common ancestor.
2) Using this technique, we can now determine the DNA pattern not only of William, but also of his son Nathaniel (270005), grandson Nathaniel (280005), great-grandson Nathaniel (290025), gg-grandson John (300181), and ggg-grandson Silvanus (310322). All these individuals passed on the "Bunnell/Bonnell baseline" 37-marker pattern. Any unique mutations down this line occurred at least after the fifth generation after William.
3) We have identified four unique mutations that can help to graft lost branches back into the tree. Down the Benjamin Bunnell (270004) line, we have found the 18 to 17 mutation on the 464d marker. Down the Nathaniel Bunnell (270005) line, we have found the 17 to 16 mutation on the 456 marker, the 19 to 20 mutation on the 576 marker, and the 12 to 13 mutation on the 442 marker. Finally, we have discovered a 37 to 36 mutation on the CDYa marker from a currently disconnected branch. If more people participate in the study, we can start to narrow down the origin of these mutations and will undoubtedly find many more.
3) It is clear that our one participant from the "Kentucky Bunnells" (a descendant of Peter (000847)) is also descended from the original William. The fact that this individual (me) is only one marker off of the "Bunnell/Bonnell baseline" makes this a near certainty. It will be interesting to find out if the unique CDYa marker is shared among other Kentucky Bunnell descendants or developed more recently.
4) Just as clearly, a number of Bunnell/Bonnells who participated in the study are not descended from William. This does not mean that their DNA patterns are not important. Actually, it makes them all the more interesting. Unfortunately, there does not yet appear to be enough correlation between any two of these to provide any leads.
So, we have learned quite a lot with only five "useful" (as of yet) data points. Now, the question is, where do we go from here? While we will never fully map out the DNA markers in the Bunnell family tree, complementary "top down" and "bottom up" approaches may help paint a more complete picture.
Top down: The first and most urgent need is at least one more data point from a descendent of William's son Benjamin (270004). Optimally, this individual should be from one of Benjamin's sons other than Benjamin (280006), although any descendant may do. The purpose of this is to try to ascertain if the unique 464d marker tracked all the way back to the first generation after William or was a more recent mutation. This will then help us confirm the "working hypothesis" that the predominant DNA pattern is actually that of William.
Over time, we could then work on trying to map out the second generation after William. William had nine child-bearing grandsons, of which eight (all but Nathaniel (280005)) are still genetically unmapped. Since it takes two data points to map any one ancestor, this may be last generation we can fully map. In the 1600/1700s, each family had an average of five child-bearing sons, so the number of required data points becomes very large with succeeding generations. However, it is possible we will have a "lucky break" by identifying a unique mutation in the first or second generation, which will then greatly narrow the possibilities for folks attempting to attach disconnected branches.
Bottom up: For the folks trying to disconnect their lost branches, the first thing they should do is get their DNA values in the database. We can immediately ascertain whether their branch is descended from William. If so, multiple data points will allow us to see if those disconnected branches display unique marker mutations that could match the marker patterns of documented descendants. Using the Kentucky Bunnells as an example, we could use more data points to explore the unique CDYa marker. We would like to know if the non-baseline value for this marker is a recent occurrence, common to descendants of Peter (000847), or common with other Kentucky Bunnells (Jeremiah (004111), etc).
If any of the disconnected branches have a unique mutation, they can then compare this against the DNA of descendants from likely common ancestor from "attached branches."
We are certainly at the stage now where any additional data points greatly expand our knowledge. While all of the unique markers we have discovered so far reside on the 26-37 markers, the 38-67 markers hold just as much promise for containing unique mutations. Therefore, we appreciate those folks who are able to pay the extra expense to take the more precise test. Additionally, new folks who join the study can improve the quality of the data if they have the oldest male Bunnell/Bonnell in their family take the test. This reduces the chances we will be distracted by unique markers that in actuality appeared only recently. Finally, we appreciate the help of the experienced Bunnell/Bonnell researchers who may be able to help DNA contributors find the information they need. There is a great pay-off for every DNA data point that we can turn from a question into an answer.
Just my thoughts...
John Gregory Bunnell
<Charlie@bunnellfamily.com> schrieb:
John,
Here’s a couple of “aids” you may find useful when going over the data.
Charlie
From: John and Heather Bunnell
[mailto:bunnellfamily@t-online.de]
Sent:
To: Charlie@bunnellfamily.com
Subject: Re: 67 markers
Charlie,
I agree, and thanks for upgrading to the 67-marker test. I think it is amazing how tight the DNA pattern has been for the William Bunnell descendants. I've been playing around with the data to try to determine what we know and don't know from the DNA testing so far. Hopefully, I'll have time to write that up over the weekend.
John Bunnell
<Charlie@bunnellfamily.com> schrieb:
Well john we are both definitely descended from a common Bunnell. If some of the other Bunnells/Bonnels would upgrade to the 67 marker test we might get a clue as to where our lines separate.
Charlie & Pat Bunnell
Visit us at www.bunnellfamily.com
--