23andMe DNA kits are on sale through October 15, 2019.
Clustering methods are all the rage in genetic genealogy these days, for good reason. They offer a tidy visualization of which of our DNA matches also share DNA with one another. That’s information we can use to corroborate our biological family trees and to identify brick-wall ancestors. What clusters don’t do, however, is generate a family tree for you.
23andMe just changed all that!
A few days ago, 23andMe surprised us all with a new “auto-built” tree feature based on shared DNA clusters. The tool, simply called Family Tree, is currently available to customers who have signed up for 23andMe’s beta testing program. It’s accessed via the Family & Friends menu. (You can sign up, too, using the instructions at the bottom of this post.)
The tree generated for my father looks like this. I’ve replaced the match names with letters to protect their privacy. These matches all share 50 cM or more with my father.
What’s going on here?
23andMe’s FAQ says:
When you participate in DNA Relatives or make one-to-one connections with other 23andMe customers, 23andMe compares your DNA and predicts your genetic relationships.
To build your predicted family tree, we then go a step farther: we also look at the relationships between your relatives, and calculate many different ways you could all be related to each other. The tree you see represents the most likely tree out of all the possibilities we calculated.
Without explicitly stating so, 23andMe has clustered the 15 matches who share the most DNA with my father (including myself) and fit them into a hypothetical tree based on whom else they match, how much DNA they share with us and with one another, and their ages.
Genetic Clustering
To see what I mean, compare the family tree above with this cluster report from the DNAgedcom Client for the same set of matches. Matches are listed in order across the top and down the left side. Where two matches also match one another, the intersecting box is colored in. The cells on the diagonal are always filled in, because that’s where each match is compared to themselves.
Match G is a first cousin once removed to my father. Match G also shares DNA with Matches A through F and with Match H, but Match H doesn’t share DNA with any of the others. 23andMe’s system has figured out that Match H is related through one branch of the tree while Matches A through F are related through another.
What’s more, the algorithm is comparing how much each pair shares to estimate how they are related to one another. For example, Match C is the father of Match D, so 23andMe put them as parent–child in the tree. That one’s easy, of course.
A more sophisticated analysis suggests how Matches A, B, and C might be related to one another. Match C shares approximately 800 cM with both Match A and Match B, which is in the first cousin range. However, Matches A and B only share about 200 cM with one another, so the three of them can’t all be first cousins to one another. An alternate scenario is that Matches A and B are 2nd cousins to one another and Match C is their great uncle. This possibility fits better to both the DNA data and to their ages (which we users can’t always see but 23andMe’s system can).
And that’s precisely what turned out to be the case based on a quick dive into their family trees. I already knew how Match C was related to me, and it only took a few minutes of online research to corroborate that Matches A and B are the grandchildren of his brothers.
You Can Annotate the Tree
An exciting feature is that you can annotate the tree with the names, birth/death years, and locations of the people in the tree. Eventually, the deceased people in your tree will be visible to your matches, much like at 23andMe’s competitors, enhancing your genealogical research and that of your matches.
Tree annotations are still in development, and there are limitations. For example, Maria Eva Weigel in the screenshot above was married twice. Her daughter Elizabeth Mühl was the only child of her first marriage, so the descendants of her second husband (Jacob Schmitt) are half cousins to us. There is currently no way to indicate half relationships in the system.
Nor is there a way to correct placements that turn out to be wrong. All of the matches in my father’s auto-tree were on the correct branches, but several were in the wrong generation (see below). Other users are reporting that maternal relatives are linked to the paternal side and vice versa. 23andMe plans to introduce a tree editor to allow us to correct these issues, but it’s not available yet. (That’s the down side of participating in a beta program.)
Cautions
Key to remember is that the tree isn’t “sided”, meaning that you can’t tell whether your matches are maternally or paternally related to you by which side of the diagram they’re on. For example, in my auto-tree, my paternal matches are on the left, while in my father’s tree, his paternal matches are on the right.
Also, the system doesn’t appear to be using haplogroups or X segments to “side” people. My father shares a substantial amount of DNA with Match D on the X chromosome, which men only inherit from their mothers, but 23andMe gave no indication that Match D is a maternal match. Perhaps they will use X DNA and haplogroups to “side” our trees in the future.
Finally, bear in mind that the proposed relationships are educated guesses, not fact. Of 13 matches in my father’s tree (excluding myself and the child of Match C), I’ve been able to place 10 of them definitively. All of them are positioned on the correct branches in the auto-tree, but five of them are in the wrong generation. Four of those five are estimated to be one generation more distantly related than they really are, e.g., a 2nd cousin once removed said to be a third, while one is a true third cousin said to be a 2nd cousin twice removed. I expect the estimates to improve over time as they gather more information from real-world relationships and as the database grows.
Oh, and the font size … oh my! The tool was clearly programmed by someone who has 20-something year old eyes, whereas mine are a few decades older. The names are so small they’re almost impossible to read. That’s what customer feedback is for, right?!
Sign Up for the Beta Program
Enrolling in the beta program gives you access to new features early. Companies beta test newly developed products to see how customers respond. For that reason, you should understand that beta tools may have unexpected glitches and are likely to change over time as the company continues to perfect them. If you’re not comfortable with that, wait for the finished product rather than joining the beta program.
If you’d like to go ahead and join, here’s how:
- Log into your 23andMe account and click on your name at the top-right to get a pull-down menu. Click “Settings”.
- On the next page, scroll down to the “Preferences” section and click the hot pink “Become a tester” button.
- That’s it! You should be enrolled in the Family Tree beta program within a day or so.
- The tree is accessed via the Family and Friends menu in your 23andMe account.
- The system may walk you through a couple of introductory screens before you can see the tree. These are expected to change as 23andMe develops the system.
As expected, it doesn’t handle half and double relationships well. My father had double cousins though his mother’s sister who was married to his father’s uncle. My father also had half-sisters through his mother. Additionally, several descendants from my grandfather’s siblings have tested. All of these groups appear as being descended from the wrong couple. There are four groups of us that are related in varying ways. Two groups are related to both my grandparents, one group is related to my grandfather only, and the other group related to my grandmother only. It has confused the heck out of their predictions for this mess.
It’s not incorporating half relationships at all yet, and it’ll be a long while before *any* automated method can deal with double relationships! My hope is that once they introduce the tree editor, the AI will be able to learn from the corrections we make to improve future predictions.
I do have one half 1C1R that is listed as 1C2R so it is assigning the distance incorrectly although it is an equivalent relationship.
The double relationships definitely complicate things! My father was born in the Smokey Mountains and it’s not uncommon for me to be distantly related to all four grandparents of my paternal matches. 🙁 On the plus side, I work in software testing so this stuff is just job security for me. 🙂
If the person is a genration out how do you put the correct information in ?
For the time being, we can’t. 23andMe is planning to add an editor to the tree in a few weeks.
It’s now been a few MONTHS and we sure would like at least a BETA editor to correct the generational errors. We understand this is BETA so let us have at it and try out the new EDITOR,
Agreed. It would be nice to be able to correct the branches and generations we know are wrong.
Hi Leah,
I was amazed to see this Family Tree suddenly appear on 23andme, but I have possibly a slightly silly question…
How do I export it? (Basically to show it to my mum, who’s the amateur genealogist).
Maybe I just need to open 23andme on something bigger than my phone and screen-shot it…?
Or is there a better way…?
Unrelated thought: I’ve just been talking with the first person I didn’t know on 23andme, about our shared relatives. It would make sense to be able to fit my tree in with hers. Might that ever happen? Should it happen…?!?
Matthew
There’s no export yet. For the blog post, I used a screenshot from my computer.
Here’s what their FAQ says about seeing other user trees:
I’ll log in on something bigger than my phone! 😉
I need to learn more about opting in to ‘DNA Relatives’….
You can opt in to DNA Relatives under Settings then Privacy/Sharing.
Love the new 23andme tool!
Ancestry keeps making tweeks and restoring old functions to their original match system and the Thrulines (why they won’t just call it a Pedigree is beyond me.)
Technically, ThruLines isn’t a pedigree. It’s a group of DNA matches who all likely descend from the same common ancestor.
I’m guessing you’ve discovered that the tree can be zoomed in and out to magnify text and image
Yes, of course.
I just don’t get it..if like me you where adopted …you have nothing and no one to start with ..so all that is very sad for us …
The tool has incredible potential for adoptees. It can give you a rough idea of how you and your DNA matches are related. Then, it’s up to you to fit the pieces together with names and dates.
If you haven’t already, you might want to read this post about adoptee searches: https://thednageek.com/getting-started-in-an-unknown-parentage-search/
Leah,
Once I’ve filled in names, will the tree start expanding? Or is what I have right now “it” until a new match comes along?
Lisa
I suspect this is “it” until they enter the next phase of development.
How dependent is this on close relationships? For example I have one half 1C1R that I know is related to me through my maternal grandmother. Everyone else is third cousin or higher and it’s a crapshoot unless we share the half 1C1R. There is another that could be related on my father’s side based on the last name. Then there is the grandchildren of my brother. That’s no help since they descend from my mother and father…lol Interesting though. I got both sets of grandparents reversed in my first attempt..geeze. I thought each was male on the left and female on the right but closer inspection proved that wrong. I think. Maybe once more people fill out trees it will be more easily filled in?
They’re not assigning sides at this point, and a lot of people are reporting that their maternal relatives are getting mixed up with paternal and vice versa. It’s early days. It’ll be really exciting if they start using X-DNA, haplogroups, and segment mapping to assign sides.
What I find bizarre is the Family Tree has connected one of my maternal 2nd cousin and two of my maternal 2nd cousins once removed on my father’s side. The reason I call this bizarre is that my father also tested at 23andMe, is linked to me, and has no connection whatsoever to my 2nd cousin or the 2nd cousins once removed.
These cousins
(1) Do not appear in my father’s DNA Relatives list
(2) Do not appear as “Relatives in Common” with either me or any of my five full siblings
(3) Share **zero** DNA with my father when directly compared to him in the chromosome browser
(4) Do not appear anywhere in my father’s beta “Family Tree”
(5) Appear in the Family Trees of all five of my full siblings, but as **maternal** relatives
(6) Appear in **my** Family Tree as great grandchild (and 2nd great grandchildren) of my father’s paternal grandparents
So basically, my 2nd cousin should be my father’s 1st cousin once removed even though they share absolutely NO DNA!
I contacted 23andMe customer service, including an explanation and a screen shot. The response?
“It’s important to note that our relationship prediction algorithm has been updated, so the predictions you are seeing are the most accurate predictions we can provide at this time.”
Huh? What I want to know is how the algorithm can possibly connect my 2nd cousin to me through my father, when it’s very clear my father and my 2nd cousin ARE NOT RELATED.
What in the world is the basis for the “relationship prediction algorithm” — updated or not — linking my 2nd cousin through my father? A game of darts?
It’s a beta feature, so glitches are to be expected.
Similar problems here. In order for the 23andMe tree to be correct in some places, my maternal grandfather would need to have children with paternal grandfather (yes, I wrote that correctly!). The problem with the 23andMe tree seems to be related to two issues: 1) the children of my maternal grandmother’s second marriage and 2) no DNA matches on my paternal grandmother’s side. The children of my maternal grandmother’s second marriage only share DNA with me, not the descendants of my grandmother’s first marriage which there are also DNA matches to. The “algorithm” does not know what to do with these “hanging” close relatives so it assigns them to my paternal grandmother.
Agreed. They’re not fully considering how our matches match one another. I’m still excited at the possibilities of this tool, though. I hope they continue to invest in it.
I just can’t imagine the programming that would cause this result: that three relatives would be assigned to the side of a parent who shares *no* DNA with them.
It doesn’t appear that my father is connected incorrectly — he does at least appear as my father. But on the other hand, way back in the days when 23andMe still had the experimental ABO Blood Type lab, they could not determine what my father’s was. The reason was two miscalled SNPs, which I brought to the attention of the lab as probable miscalls. They assured me that this was extremely unlikely.
But then one day they “corrected” the call on one SNP for a whole group of customers, including my father. This eliminated a discordant call between my father and four of his offspring. A bit later, without ever saying anything, they also corrected the call on the other SNP, which eliminated a discordant call between my father and his other two offspring.
After they updated both calls, the lab *ought* to have worked. But it never did, apparently because they never made the updated data available to the lab. Eventually, they dropped the lab altogether. I’m not sure why, but I suspect it had something to do with keeping the FDA happy.
My point is, even glitches don’t just happen. They are caused, but by what in this case is unclear to me.
It’s a beta feature. Beta features are, by definition, still works in progress.
Here’s more of the sort of nonsense I’m seeing with the beta Family Tree.
One of my profiles is showing a relative in his tree that is predicted to be a 2nd cousin. Only, their DNA sharing is 705 cM.
Clicking on the relative’s circle and then “See other possible relationships” leads to the explanation that “Statistically, [relative’s name] is most likely your 2nd cousin …”
Really? Whose statistics?
Yes, I know the mantra. Beta features are expected to have glitches. I agree, but these are not — in my opinion — beta-level glitches. They’re alpha, and should have been worked out during in-house testing.
I should have noted that with that same person mentioned above, another individual who shares 670 cM with him is identified as a 1st cousin. “See other possible relationships” once again explains that “Statistically, [relatives name] is most likely to be your 1st cousin.”
What statistics are these that make someone sharing 705 cM most likely to be a 2nd cousin, while someone sharing 670 cM is most likely to be a 1st cousin?
However, I think I know what the problem is in this case. The profile in this instance belongs to someone whose half sister also tested. She is in fact *confirmed* as his half sister in both her profile and his. Only, their beta Family Trees labeled them as uncle and niece.
Now, according to the explanation given by Family Tree, both the amount of DNA shared AND self-reported ages are used to determine relationship. These two were born in 1955 and 1956, and I presume that 23andMe can do the math.
By their own criteria, they should have been identified as most likely to be half siblings — which they are. But, since they were identified as uncle and niece, this created another problem.
The person identified as my profile’s *2nd* cousin, despite sharing 705 cM, doesn’t share anything with the niece — who should be a FULL niece, and would therefore be related to all the people her uncle is related to. She might not share DNA with all of them, but she would definitely share DNA with her “uncle’s” 1st cousins. They would be her 1st cousins once removed — and it’s just not conceivable that someone would share no DNA with a 1st cousin once removed.
However, a person *might* not share DNA with a 2nd cousin once removed. So by labeling the person as a 2nd cousin, instead of a 1st cousin, it works. Sort of.
Meanwhile, the person who shares 670 cM and is labeled a 2nd cousin is on the shared side of the two half siblings. In fact, the half sister’s sharing with this person is 621 cM.
Even more interesting, though, is the proposed “1st cousin once removed” of the “uncle”. The two share 209 cM. This same individual is listed as the “niece’s” 2nd cousin, which would make sense IF the relationship to the “uncle” is correct. How much does the “niece” share with her “2nd cousin”? 325 cM.
The first sentence in the next to the last paragraph should read “who shares 670 cM and is labeled a 1st cousin”, not 2nd cousin.
I would love to get a peak at the assumptions they’re making on the back end. I’m really excited at the potential for this tool, but you and I both agree it needs work.
Amy idea when the Beta will be finished?
I wish I knew!
I’m pleased to note that my maternal 2nd cousin and his daughter and 1st cousin’s son — who are my 2nd cousins once removed — are no longer being shown as attached through my tested and linked father. He shares no DNA with these maternal cousins, let alone an amount that would be consistent with being 1st cousin once removed or 2nd cousin.
Unfortunately, the problem is now showing up in my youngest sister’s tree. My father is also linked to her as her father, yet Family Tree shows her as connected to these maternal cousins through our father.
But, at least they have corrected my tree — which shows that they *can* get it right. The more troubling issue is that they *already* had it right for my sister. Apparently, fixing my tree messed hers up … and I wish I knew why. (Our trees actually should be virtually identical, except for descendants on either side.)
Still … I’m guardedly optimistic about the future usefulness of this feature.
Baby steps!
Well, since the time I wrote that the problem was fixed, it’s become UNfixed. My tree is back to showing my maternal 2nd cousin, his daughter, and my 2nd cousin once removed (who is a 1st cousin once removed to my 2nd cousin) as being related through my father.
Since the beta Family Tree shows the correct degree for me for these cousins, that means it’s showing my father as my 2nd cousin’s 1st cousin once removed. So even though 23andMe says that the algorithm also considers the relationship of your relatives *to each other*, it sees no problem with a 1st cousin once removed sharing 0 cM with someone (while simultaneously passing on 207 cM); or a 1st cousin once removed sharing 0 cM with someone.
Beta feature or not, that’s a pretty big error to my way of thinking.
I agree. It looks like it’s going to take them longer than we’d like to work out the kinks. I hope they do, because it’s a really great concept.
I might also add that it’s pretty clear that Family Tree isn’t (yet?) making use of X chromosome matching. My maternal 2nd cousin who is wrongly connected through my father doesn’t happen to share anything with me on the X chromosome, but my 2nd cousin once removed — the one who is my 2nd cousin’s 1st cousin once removed — shares a 31 cM segment with me.
Obviously, if Family Tree simply took *that* detail into consideration, it would know that my 2nd cousin once removed *must* be on my mother’s side.
I want to know why my results show my half brothers like my half brothers and there is correct , but in the family tree beta has put them as uncles and aunt. This has created a great confusion among my half brothers who now think they are my uncles. It is worth mentioning that with two of my half-sisters I share 29.0% of DNA and with other 28.7%
A half brother and an uncle are expected to share the same amount of DNA. 23andMe should improve their algorithm eventually to include other matches in the equation so as to tell them apart.
Hi, Good afternoon!
in the test shows us as half brothers but in the beta tree has created tremendous confusion by giving us as an uncle and niece, the tree show my 1st cousin , 1st cousin once removed and they who had doubts now have gotten worse. My half brothers are older than me some for 10 years and another for 15. When I was born my father was already older and my mother very young. When they see that tree they have more doubts, because their father never told that he had another daughter. There are three who already had their test with the three results gave us as half brothers. Sharing with the females 2133 cm another with 2159 cm with my other half sister and with my half brother 1583 cm. DNA Painter gives 100% to my half brother and me but under several possibilities too DNA painter. One of my half-sisters gives us 80% under other possibilities including half-sisters too and the other % gives us sibling.
Thank you for your prompt response, I just hope this can be clarified.
Remind them that the tree tool is a beta product, which means it’s still in development. If they’re still concerned, you might be interested in doing a phone consultation with me to make sure the relationships are what you were told they are.
Thank you very much I will mention this : )
Forget asking how much it would be if they wanted a consultation, and number to communicate? Thanks
Feel free to email me at theDNAgeek (at) gmail.com.
Any chance of an update or new post covering the editing tools which finally came out?
I can correct most errors, but (to me) it seems impossible to make certain corrections involving the oldest generation in the tree. One of my 2nd great grandfathers has his brother listed as his son. If they had a father in the tree it would be an easy fix, but I’m not allowed to add a generation above the 2nd great grandfather.
A summary of what can be done and what cannot would be great, and might get more attention from 23andme than my single support email.
Yes! The new editing feature came out right before RootsTech and I was swamped.
Plz be careful with the 23 Beta Family Tree.
I am a mixed race individual so I can easily tell which side mom/dad my matches belong to. The Beta Family Tree attributed a cousin who is African-American to my mom’s family, and my mom is Hungarian! Beta Family Tree then went to suggest the match shared the same maternal 2nd grandparents, which definitely was not true. I was able to connect the match to my paternal side, and find our real shared ancestor.
Beta Family Tree could also create errors because it relies so heavily on user input. It also does not allow you to import a family tree so you are doing a tedious amount of work, from scratch.
In my opinion, Ancestry Thru Lines is more accurate and easier to use.
Unless one or both of your parents has tested, the tool can’t tell which side is which. 23andMe recently introduced an editor, so we can now fix our trees if we want to. I agree that it would be a lot easier if we could import a gedcom!
So having read all the comments, and experienced all of the above that others have, I must say I am very pleased with this software for a couple of reasons, and extremely disappointed for a couple as well.
Yes, the DNA testing matches you up with people that share your DNA and are part of your bloodline, but because of the percentages, it is impossible to determine what side they are on, however the software allows you to move any of them into the correct place, this feature is great. You can add, delete or move an entire branch or generation or individual at will. The tree is visually pleasing with circles, easily to identify who is blood related and who isn’t, also easy to identify who has submitted DNA through 23andme as well. Great stuff here.
Now for my issues.
When you need to delete someone you created in error, if they are linked or have info entered, at least on my iPad, you can’t reach the “Clear all info” option at the bottom of the individuals edit box, in order to then delete their circle/space. Glitch?
Here however is the bigger problem.
This software is intended to match you up with DNA relatives, or people in your bloodline, you then offer the ability to create a family tree to track your entire family, because that is what a tree is intended to do. I have hundreds of matching DNA relatives, and when creating my tree, I have to fill in a whole lot of stuff myself manually (and I am ok with that), in order to connect all of my relatives to the other 23andme customers in order to complete the link. Well why in the world does anyone think that I can connect hundreds of them when you only give a 250 person limit? Insane. Either don’t offer this software to begin with, (and I am glad you did), or it needs to be unlimited access space for family trees….. seriously. I just got done talking to family I never knew I had, reconnecting, hundreds of hours spent on research and documenting so I could fill in my family tree, and today, suddenly I get a response, sorry, you have reached you 250 person limit. No other options are available at this time, but maybe sometime in the future this will change. Seriously? What the hell am I supposed to do now? Unless you expand for members, or offer an upgrade for space, or something very soon, I am now forced to acquire other software to create my family tree. Waste of time. Please fix this issue. Thank you.
This is great feedback for 23andMe. You can contact them here: https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to be impossible for cousins to be married (or, more accurately, to have progeny.) This kills the utility of the tree right off the bat for me since a pair of my grandparents were first cousins (i.e. shared a same set of grandparents.) Cousins (first, second, third or more) marrying is not rare in history, and makes for interesting DNA.
The 23andMe tree system does not currently allow for cousin marriages. You can still add your grandparents, their parents, and their shared grandparents twice. Alternately, you could add the shared grandparents on, say, your grandfather’s line and on your grandmothers instead put a notation that the couple is repeated in the tree.
You’re definitely not alone in having this problem. Yet as you say, marrying cousins is not rare — at least, not historically. In fact, one estimate says that as many as 80% of all marriages *historically* were between 2nd cousins or closer.
Indeed, one of my great grandmothers was married to her 2nd cousin. However, that was her 1st marriage. My grandmother was a product of her 2nd marriage, which was to a man who was not a known relative of hers. (Though his father did immigrate to America from the same small Mediterranean island that his wife’s father did.)
This same great grandmother’s maternal grandparents, on the other hand, were 2nd cousins; and a pair of ancestors further back in this line were 1st cousins once removed.
But look at it this way. Originally the tree couldn’t half “half” cousins, either, and I have a lot of those. On my mother’s side, there are the grandchildren of my grandmother’s half sisters. And on my father’s side, my grandmother is the only child ever born to her mother — who was never married to my grandmother’s mother.
My great grandfather did marry, though: twice. The 1st time was before his relationship with my great grandmother, and he had one child with this woman. The second marriage came after my great grandfather’s relationship with my great grandmother, and by this marriage he had *ten* children.
On both sides, some of my “half” 2nd cousins took 23andMe’s DNA test, and they showed up as relatives in Family Tree. But I didn’t initially have any way of showing that we shared only one great grandparent. At least that has since been changed.
(Until it was, it was a big problem for half siblings. I know of at least one case in which 23andMe’s Family Tree insisted that a pair of half siblings were actually uncle and niece, despite their having been born in consecutive years.)