Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can Y DNA be extracted from bones

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Can Y DNA be extracted from bones

    Can Y dna be extracted from a tooth or other bone
    parts from a 17th century burial?

  • #2
    It can be BUT there are MANY factors involved. In many cases the Y-DNA will be too fragmented to be of any value. Contact FTDNA and discuss your case with them.

    Comment


    • #3
      As I understand it, Y DNA is much harder to recover from ancient burials than mtDNA.

      Also, stringent precautions need to place to prevent contamination from those handling the ancient material.

      BTW: How are you associated with a 17th century burial?

      Comment


      • #4
        That would be interesting since I found some bones in my backyard and I do believe the development where I live was on or nearby where Father Serra and Gaspar Portola's camped during their famous expedition across California.

        At first I thought they might be chicken bones from some construction worker, but I kept them since they don't appear to be chicken bones after comparing it to some KFC bones and Popeye's. Definitely finger licking fun for being an amateur anthropologist when having to do comparisons.

        I'm wondering if it might be an ancient Chumash bone but it doesn't look hominid to me. It's definitely not bovine, hog or pig. The bones just look weird and not typical bones that I can attribute to anything. I'm thinking they might be prehistoric.

        Arch

        Comment


        • #5
          If you touched them with your bare hands you contaminated them so no testing would be of any value.

          Comment


          • #6
            If you're really curious about the bones, you might take them to an anatomist at a museum & get his opinion. I recall how, as a child, I found some bones near a railroad track & took them home. They were nearly a complete skeleton. After awhile, I buried them & marked them "Raccoon", because that was what I assumed that they were. Later that year, my parents took my brothers & I to a museum that had a good section on fauna & flora. I was walking along & saw a skeleton with a skull identical to the one I had found. Wow! I looked at the museum's ID nameplate & saw the word "Opossum".

            I couldn't tell the difference between a placental & a marsupial.

            Timothy Peterman

            Comment


            • #7
              17th century grave...? goin grave robbin are we? Don't gimmee no ideas!

              Comment


              • #8
                It would be great if Relative Finder and Family Finder and other dna tests could be done from bones. But I can't dig up my ancestors. I think I would if it was legal and acceptable and if I could. It would be great for ancestry admixture analysis also.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I know this is an old thread but it looked interesting. I happen to have a lock of hair from my 3rd great-grandmother. I do know that hair contains no DNA unless there happens to be a follicle attached, so I'm not asking about that. But it got me to thinking. What if your family just saved stuff and you had one of your great-grandfathers baby teeth. Would it be possible to recover DNA and what would it cost? After all, they recovered DNA from a 14K year-old Amerindian child.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DRNewcomb View Post
                    I know this is an old thread but it looked interesting. I happen to have a lock of hair from my 3rd great-grandmother. I do know that hair contains no DNA unless there happens to be a follicle attached, so I'm not asking about that. But it got me to thinking. What if your family just saved stuff and you had one of your great-grandfathers baby teeth. Would it be possible to recover DNA and what would it cost? After all, they recovered DNA from a 14K year-old Amerindian child.
                    In my opinion, in such cases contamination precludes a meaningful DNA analysis.

                    Mr. W.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I am not going to attempt to understand this:

                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3254873/

                      Along the same lines, a while back I found reference to a firm which has had some success in getting DNA from cremains.

                      Jack

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by georgian1950 View Post
                        I am not going to attempt to understand this:

                        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3254873/

                        Along the same lines, a while back I found reference to a firm which has had some success in getting DNA from cremains.

                        Jack
                        Large bones – a small baby tooth.

                        A research team in bio-suits (or at least with masks and gloves) – handling by multiple people with their bare hands.

                        A research team with known DNA profiles (so a contamination can be detected) – unknown DNA profiles of those who touched the tooth.

                        A research team with a know-how about the DNA handling procedures – just recall what you had done with your baby teeth (or seen others doing with baby teeth, theirs or not).


                        Mr. W.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DRNewcomb View Post
                          What if your family just saved stuff and you had one of your great-grandfathers baby teeth. Would it be possible to recover DNA and what would it cost?
                          A teeth should be a good candidate since inside the contamination should be small. They will drill in to the pulp (so don't expect to have a nice sample left).
                          [Detection of G1138A Mutation of the FGFR3 Gene in Tooth Material from a 180-Year-Old Museological Achondroplastic Skeleton]
                          I'm no sure they will be able to get as much "good" DNA that's necessary for genealogy purpose.
                          There might as well be some legal implications on sending in other peoples DNA sample when there is no consent record.

                          Price , let me speculate you will be able to buy many hundred FamilyFinder test (maybe thousands).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by JMAisHere View Post
                            A teeth should be a good candidate since inside the contamination should be small. They will drill in to the pulp (so don't expect to have a nice sample left).
                            [Detection of G1138A Mutation of the FGFR3 Gene in Tooth Material from a 180-Year-Old Museological Achondroplastic Skeleton]
                            I'm no sure they will be able to get as much "good" DNA that's necessary for genealogy purpose.
                            There might as well be some legal implications on sending in other peoples DNA sample when there is no consent record.

                            Price , let me speculate you will be able to buy many hundred FamilyFinder test (maybe thousands).
                            I am not a dentist.

                            However, I think that permanent teeth of an adult still in their jaw have their pulp protected, while baby teeth with their roots naturally getting dissolved (c.f. odontoclast) do not.

                            http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...y_06_email.jpg


                            Mr. W.
                            Last edited by dna; 12 March 2018, 02:10 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by dna View Post
                              I think that permanent teeth of an adult still in their jaw have their pulp protected, while baby teeth with their roots naturally getting dissolved (c.f. odontoclast) do not.

                              Ohh, I clearly did not think this through.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X