DNA samples from recovered bodies

[Mark Hone]

Apologies if this has been covered before but do the MOD/CWGC routinely take DNA samples from recovered bodies in case they can be identified? A friend of mine has learned that one of the bodies recently discovered and due for reburial is from a regiment/location which means that it might possibly be the remains of his great-uncle.

[Seadog]

Mark I believe that this does not happen as a matter of routine though it is something I would very much like to see implemented when the remains are discovered. The MOD have embraced this technology with great success in the case of the Beaucamps-Ligny 15. Its use of course will be dependent on the strength of the evidence that can be produced to support a possible ID plus the provision of a suitable living donor. The downside of this is that I imagine such procedures will add greatly to the workload of the JCCC which has already acquired additional staff to cope with the current level of discoveries. I have sympathy for your friend fot when the soldier is buried any hope of an ID will not be possible. May I suggest that you or he contact the JCCC with any evidence that you have and see if they can be persuaded to conduct a DNA profile.

N

PS Perhaps members have some thoughts on this?

[trajan]

... PS Perhaps members have some thoughts on this?

Indeed. DNA samples and teeth samples should be taken as a routine procedure in all such cases. You probably know that in archaeology DNA analysis is extensively used - along with tooth analysis - on a regular basis to identify the origins and backgrounds of ancient humans represented solely by skeletal material. Although the same degree of precision is not needed in this field as is required for a court of justice, if we can use DNA analysis to identify a mid-Neolithic LBK skeleton found in Central Europe as being directly descended from somebody living in Eastern Anatolia in the early Neolithic, some 1,000 + years before, then at the very least, systematic DNA and teeth analysis of unidentified remains found from the GW will localise their general background - and so even without having DNA from living relatives it will help determine their origins. Think the 'Iceman': analysis of his teeth tells us in which river valley in North Italy he probably spent his early life. Think Leicester's Richard III: same thing...

[Seadog]

A few thoughts on any system of DNA profiling etc. of discovered human remains from the battlefields with the purpose of identifying the fallen.

Depending on the scale of the individual remains it should be possible to extract a suitable DNA sample plus other data as mentioned in the post above. This of course will include as now any badges etc. also discovered with the finds.

This plus the GPS data of the position of the finds will be required which then will constitute an individual folder of information which can be scanned to a computer database.

At what stage will such finds trigger an historical investigation into the possibility of obtaining a positive ID given that it is likely that modern DNA samples can also be obtained for matching purposes.

Will the MOD JCCC be responsible for collating the historical investigation when a good chance of ID is deemed possible.

What input will the public be allowed to make in these cases (Post 1) as the MOD do not publicize battlefield finds so the first that the public know about them is when the CWGC report the burials on their website having been informed of this by the MOD. It is obvious that for any of this to work there must be a new policy of transparency from the MOD in detailing the finds when they occur, because of course once the fallen are buried any hope of ID is buried with them.

There will be no need to delay the interment of the fallen as all relevant information will have been recorded and stored.

All of this is possible and I believe that our fallen deserve such treatment as is now possible with the ever evolving technology, sadly though given the evidence of the eventual successful identification of the majority of the Beaucamps-Ligny 15 which after 5 years of inaction the authorities were persuaded to use the available technology any formal system will be very difficult to get agreed and will no doubt be opposed by organisations and individuals who frankly should know better

I have probably missed out other aspects of this and I will be happy to read what members think as I expect others will also.

N

[Mark Hone]

Thanks for the responses. My friend has subsequently been in touch with the CWGC/MOD about this and he was told that they are now taking routine DNA samples from newly-recovered bodies. I shall add further details when I've had a chance to talk to him.

[Seadog]

Good news Mark, just a couple of questions who said that DNA was being taken from the fallen and who is taking it?, I presume the MOD. I am not having a go at the MOD or indeed the CWGC, who will I assume not be involved with this new procedure but it really is about time that this was brought into the open so we all know what is going on. I take that there is nothing to report about private individuals producing evidence and requesting that DNA profiling is applied.

Cheers

Norman

[Mark Hone]

No further information, I'm afraid, as he just sent me a very brief email. I have a feeling that he had spoken specifically to CWGC. As I say, I'll confirm details when I see him.

[trajan]

Just really to add that the taking of bone and teeth samples for immediate and future reference is really such a straightforward matter in archaeology these days. Bear in mind though that in archaeological work we generally only look for a 50%+ 'matching' results in terms of origin, but even so, determinations of things like eye and hair colour and where born can be reasonably reliably secured. It It is good to hear that the CWGC are taking at least DNA samples, but I get the feeling (wrong though I may well be) that more could be done re: ageing (e.g., epiphyses, teeth, etc.), and origins (teeth especially) of individuals than seems to be the case. I don't, obviously know what CWGC do, but would like to know more; and perhaps I should add that I am in no way connected with the type of work that Norman and others would like to see done, just adding observations on what can be done - and in my opinion should be done - as standard procedure.

Julian

[MelPack]

I am not sure that I can add a great deal to this thread beyond the arguments that have been rehearsed many times before.

I assume that Mark's friend is referring to the burials taking place tomorrow of the unknowns, three of whom have identifiable regimental affiliations.

The missing for those three regiments, as commemorated on Tyne Cot and the Menin Gate, number 626 for the KOSB, 1,997 for the Rifle Brigade and 877 for the RWK.

Mark mentions that the missing soldier is a great uncle of the friend. A familial relationship does not necessarily mean that a living relative is informative for DNA comparative purposes notwithstanding whether a set of remains can yield a viable sample of DNA for identification purposes.

The plain fact is that DNA testing is not the magical silver bullet that it is widely believed to be. I can think of several instances where testing has been undertaken but the anticipated identification has not been forthcoming.

As an illustration, we are now nearly seven years down the road from when the Fromelles identification project was commenced. In spite of the substantial resources committed; the enormous dedication of those involved ( a number of whom are contributors to this Board) and a potential identification ratio below 6:1 (250 sets of remains and a closed group of possibles below 1500) only about half of the men have been successfully identified.

A 6:1 ratio is far removed from 626:1, 1,997:1 or 877:1

[Mark Hone]

Thanks for all of these contributions. You are quite correct, Mel, the possible relative is one of the three soldiers you mention, killed in the Second Battle of Ypres.

[Guest docmo]

One option that I have not seen discussed on this or other threads (although it may have been) is the ability to compare Y-DNA markers (i.e. extracted from the Y chromosome of recovered remains) with the data in the publicly available database YSearch (see http://www.ysearch.org/search_search.asp?uid=&freeentry=true). This database has over 177,000 records and over 130,000 unique surnames. It is a very simple matter to key in the values for over 100 Y-DNA (STR) markers and compare them anonymously with the records in the database. Anyone can do this (if they know the values of the STR markers in question).

 

The goal of this exercise is NOT to identify individuals within the database who are closely related to the fallen soldier (although it may do so) but rather to identify his most likely surname. The comparison will generate a list of genetic matches and each of these will have a particular surname. It is likely that in many cases a particular surname will predominate, and this becomes the "most likely candidate" for the surname of the fallen soldier. This can be compared against a list of possible / suspected soldiers (should one exist) to see if the "most likely surname" also appears on the list. In this way, subsequent DNA testing can target the living relatives of specific soldiers rather than having to test the living relatives of every single soldier on the list of possibilities. This saves money and improves the cost-effectiveness of the JCCC's limited resources. One could also argue that the availability of this new facility creates a moral imperative to take full advantage of it. 

 

This technique has been used by male adoptees to identify the surname of their genetic father. Based on data I analysed in 2014, the success rate of this technique in identifying a specific surname was in the region of 10-15%. This success rate is likely to be greater now (2016) and will continue to improve over time, due to the ever-increasing size of the Y-DNA database.

 

Another alternative is to use the FTDNA database which has 580,000 records and 433,000 unique surnames. This can be arranged privately and confidentially by contacting FamilyTreeDNA directly (or through me). Please feel free to email me if you require any further information - mauricegleeson@doctors.org.uk (I am a medical doctor and work in the field of genetic genealogy).

 

Cheers

 

Maurice

 

[Blackblue]

a

Edited 24 May , 2017 by Blackblue

[WiseMonkey]

Ive posted this on another DNA related thread.

 

For relatives of unrecovered Australian soldiers https://www.army.gov.au/forms/uwc-a-online-registration-form

 

Quote

Relatives of unrecovered soldiers (missing in action and/or presumed dead) are encouraged to register your details with Army. If in the future we are investigating a case that may involve your relative we need to be able to reach out to family for notifications, funerals and DNA sample requests to facilitate identification. Completing this form will record your details against the soldier to enable early contact should their remains be found.