Are DNA haploid groups too much information to be publically posted?

Question

An mtDNA Haplogroup category was added to Adams-50332.  I think this may be way too much very private family information to be posting publically.

I for one am very reluctant to have any DNA information of myself or my family show up online.  There is just too much information embedded in that code for me to be comfortable with it.

In this particular case I am only related by marriage not blood so there is no direct impact on my family but still...

Also mitochondrial DNA is limited to the female line - Phebe's parents are not in WT and neither of her daughters are included in the category and there is no source given for the categorization.  There is still the "No known carrier's  of Phebe's mitochondrial DNA..." statement on the file.  So the whole thing may appear moot anyway.  

However I'm pretty sure I am not the only one who might be concerned about the practice.

Answer 1

WikiTree has as one of it's primary focuses a confirmation of genealogical records through DNA testing. Adding a high level haplogroup is not specific information (especially for mtDNA) that would be exploitable by anyone. If you do not wish to add that to your own that is understandable, but Phebe lived several hundred years ago. Linking that mtDNA haplogroup could confirm or deny the possibility of connection for many descendants.

Comments

Jonathan's comment about "especially mtDNA" refers to the fact that mitochondrial DNA is not human DNA in the same sense that our 23 chromosome pairs are human DNA. Mitochondria are subcellular organelles that are vital for life and have their own DNA.

There are some medical conditions related to mitochondrial defects. I am not aware of these being identifiably associated with mtDNA. haplogroups.

Answer 2

I'm a pretty cautious person when it comes to personal information, but it never would have occurred to me to be cautious about propogated haplogroup information. Can you give us some idea of why you find this concerning? i.e., What's the worst thing that could possibly happen?

Comments

I don’t know - which is part of the problem.

One red flag is that I was asked if I knew if this person was Native American.  In the “old days” I would have thought that was likely to be from someone wanting to brag …but now?

---

Jennifer, even two people who are an mtDNA full sequence exact match may not share a common ancestor for 70 generations. It simply mutates too slowly. Some haplogroups are more common than others, and a number of the older ones have gone "extinct" in the sense that modern populations carry some classification that is deeper in the haplotree (e.g., K2b1a1a rather than just K2). But even if we consider every single one of the mtDNA haplogroups ever identified and compare that to the global population, we'd find that an average of over 1.4 million living people have the same haplogroup. For some subclades, or branches, of haplogroup H, it would be tens of millions.

I don't believe (opinion only) that the haplogroup Category K2b1a1a should have been added to Phebe's profile without an explanation of the evidentiary conclusion--since Phebe obviously didn't take a test herself--but the haplogroup is believed to be as old as 7,600 years before present, or as young as about 3,400 years. Absolutely no conclusion of genealogical relatedness can be drawn from the haplogroup alone.

An aside is that there is misinformation out there regarding "Native American" mtDNA haplogroups. Some people have read that basal (top-level) haplogroups A, B, C, D, and X are NA. That's not wholly correct. Ancient NA remains have been found that fall under those haplogroups, but as we see more and more research done in the arena of biomolecular archeology, we're also finding remains in and near the Pacific rim of Asia carrying those basal haplogroups. For example, Chukchi and Siberian Eskimos of extreme northeastern Siberia have been found to carry haplogroups A, C, and D; B has been found in south-central Asia; and X has been found in the mountainous Altai region.

So it's a mistake for anyone to make a blanket statement regarding NA heritage based only one of those five, basal haplogroups. Deeper research is required. That said, the K2b1 parent clade of K2b1a1a is common across Eurasia, the Levant, and the Arabian Peninsula. It is definitely not Native American.