 Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to proceed now with our next presentation. And this is a particularly exciting one because it deals with the identification of Thomas Kent, who was one of the 1916 rebels. And we have here with us today James Carlson, who comes to us from the University College Dublin. Could we shut the door there at the back, Dick? Thanks. So Jens is a lecturer at the School of Biology and Environmental Science in UCD. He has a PhD in Population Genetics from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Sweden. And his primary research interest is aquatic organisms including fishes, shellfish, and hydrothermal vent and methane sep fauna. So one could ask, what was he thinking when he got involved with the identification of Thomas Kent? But it's quite a simple explanation. He was approached by John Byrne, who was leading an Irish charity organisation about striped hyena biology in Kenya. And I think at that stage I'm just going to leave it to Jens to explain how he got involved in this fascinating project. Thank you very much. Yeah, it's a complicated history. Well, the idea of Thomas Kent actually came out of Africa, which is quite interesting. John Byrne called me a couple of days, came back from Africa and told me how the historic person was interested to identify. And friends at Ireland were not really happy to do them themselves. They're not using the same technologies. They saw problems with their identification. So that's what I'm going to talk about today, how we did it. And I wasn't alone, obviously. So there's a large group over from UCD, and we shouldn't have all the names listed down here. They're coming from Area 52, which is my own lab over there. They're doing archaeology and using genetic tools. We're doing population genetics and using a lot of statistics. And also John Finarelli, who's an expert on statistics. We brought a lot of different people together for this work. I was also supported on a bit different state organizations, et cetera and so on. Now, at the time, which would become obvious, we had the archaeologists working together with the population geneticists and statisticians. I think at the time UCD was the only place in the world that could solve this riddle. It's quite incredible. But nevertheless, so these are the people, a bunch of different peoples here involved. Thomas Kent, of course, and the identification of Thomas Kent. So, 1916, you know this story better than I do. I'm Swedish, I'm not Irish. So it went well and out. But during the rebellion, it was not only happening in Dublin. It was also happening in Cork. And Thomas Kent was supposed to be arrested in his family home, which we have up here near Castle Myles. He and his brothers were fighting the police, the Royal Irish Constabulary, as they came to arrest him. And according to legend, their mother helped them load in the guns. So there were shots fired and the constable was shot at. And this is the actual constable that was shot at, William Rowe. And this is the photograph you will find on Wikipedia, et cetera, or on the internet. This one you won't find in the press. It turns out that our sister school, SBBS, we are known as SBES over at UCD. The SBBS, one of the professors there, her husband is the grandchild of William Rowe. So it was a close connection to the actual research being done there and the researchers over there. So that's William Rowe and his wife. Thomas Kent was arrested. This photograph is allegedly from Castle Myles, as they're bringing him to the cells. The problem with it, it's probably staged. The shadows, they say this was in the morning, and if it was in the morning, the shadows are in the wrong direction. So then they're walking away. Also finding a photo opportunity where you can see all the faces of the guards. It's very, very unlikely. So we and the archaeologists believe this is a staged photograph of Thomas Kent. Well, it was brought to Colise Barracks in Cork, where he was also executed later on. So that was basically it. He was put in a non-marked shallow grave in 1916. And the British military records are often extremely good. But it will tell you who was doing what, how many bullets were fired, what caliber were fired, where the person was sitting or standing, and all of that detail is usually in the records. This was not the case for Thomas Kent. It was unusual in terms of having so very little information about it. So another six years passed and still have the British rules. And in 1922 he gets Irish rule. What they've done then is to have a memorial plaque in the graves around the marks of the reputed location of the burial place of Thomas Kent and in the grounds of Cork prison. So they put up this plaque, but this plaque had been moved around. So they weren't sure about the location where Thomas Kent was actually buried. He wasn't forgotten, though, in Cork especially. Kent station, the railway station in Cork is named after him, and there's also busts here of Thomas Kent. So during Irish rule he was remembered in Cork, but this exact location was unknown. And what happened in 19 or in 2015 is that they were going to do some work when Cork prison is actually not going to be used anymore. So they sent the archaeologists there and tried to locate the grave of Thomas Kent. So this is how it looked in 2015 before the archaeologists started digging. And this is how it looked after Gary Donne. And there are no remains in there, obviously. But the grave had been opened, probably. And you can see a brown mark here in the grave, which means that someone has been digging through the grave before. So they found the remains of a person there. And this is what came out in the news. So human remains believed to belong to Thomas Kent have been recovered in the grounds of Cork prison and the remains were found during an archaeological dig yesterday. And now the remains will be DNA tested. To clarify, if there are those of the Castle of Lyons man who was executed in 1916, that's a very tall order. Does anyone know in here how to do the DNA test to identify a 99-year-old corpse lying in the shallow grave in Cork, which is not the triest place in the world? And the water is a big enemy, a big, big enemy for DNA. It will deteriorate the DNA. So before we begin how we did it, let's talk about how Francis Ireland will do it. And that is how all the forensic forces in the world will do it. And Francis Ireland is the state organization working with the police to do all the DNA testing. The DNA testing itself is not done by the police force. It's done by Francis Ireland. So they use something called micro satellites. I've heard today that they're being called STRs. Those are the same thing. In the field of forensic and genealogy, you call them shock tandem repeats, STRs. We call them micro satellites in the world of biology. It's the same marker. So what we're looking at here is one person here, for instance. This could be a sequence from one person. And those are the four letters from the talk we had earlier. We've got brilliant introduction to DNA. It's ATC. And gee, that's it. That's exactly what we're seeing here. In some areas you've got repetitive motifs. In this case it's TTA, TTA, TTA, TTA and so on. That motif is repeated. That's a micro satellite. So there's one individual up here, or one sequence, and it contains the micro satellites. And it's the number of repeats that we count. That tells us what we call the genotype. That gives us the name, the information about the locus. And the locus is just a specific part of the DNA that you're interrogating. We're looking at the micro satellites here. Probably not even human, by the way. All animals, all organisms have it. So there are just variants in lengths. You can see here, this is a long repeat. This is not as long a repeat. This is short. These are longer again. Obviously we can tell that that's more DNA than from two people. One person can only have two variants. One from the mom and one from the dad. And we heard that repeatedly in the previous talk. It's great. So the police force, they use micro satellites or STRs. And when we look at them, we can see them like this. This is how they look on an automated sequencer. And we look where these peaks are. So we get a pattern, a profile. And that's what they usually call a DNA profile. So there are about 100 to 450 base pairs long. And these are the base pairs. So you can count this one here. It's going from zero all the way up to 120. So that's 120 letters. That's the length in base pairs. The forensic forces uses 15 to 17 different micro satellites. Now for STRs. That is enough to tell all humans on this planet apart. All of you have a unique profile. Except identical twins. Everybody else has a unique profile. So that's why they're using it. The forensic forces have asked the genealogy, invested millions and millions and millions into this type of marker. And that's what they've been using in the police forces. And just now I'm hearing that you're moving into the single nucleotide polymorphism, which I think is a good thing. So that's how forensics are on work. And what they do, they go out to a crime scene, for instance, and they find blood splatter and knife or something like that. So they have a trace. They take that trace and generate the profile. And if they have a suspect, in this case we have a suspect over here, they generate another profile. And if they match, well, there's your culprit. So this is how genetic identification is done by forensics Ireland all the time. If there is a body though, a human remains found. For instance, on the beach you find that a sailor has been beached. You basically have very little tissue left where you can get DNA. They usually take the femur. And I'd like to point out, none of the skeletal remains you will see in this demonstration or this talk here will be in Thomas Kent. So these are just stolen pictures from the internet, basically. So they drill into the femur. And the femur is the thickest bone in your body. And that's why it's traditionally thought to be a good DNA source. So you drill into that, you get DNA out, you generate the profile, and you compare it to an archive. And then you can identify a person for it, in this case, a sailor. In Thomas Kent's case, or Mr. Rex, as we became known in the lab, we had the skeletal remains. And they were laid out in cork moor. And we were supposed to generate the profile. But even if it generated the profile, how did we know this was Thomas Kent? We had no Thomas Kent alive. And we had no clothing or anything like that. We knew that he would be wearing like a toothbrush or things like that, that are good sources for DNA. So we had nothing to compare to. We had a trace. And if we could generate DNA from that, we had no archive. They didn't have DNA testing in 1916. So there was no archive whatsoever of Thomas Kent's DNA, at least not in a form that they put away. The police force also tried to get DNA from the femur, but failed. The bone wasn't in too bad shape. Or rather, the DNA in the bone wasn't in too bad shape. And that's probably coming from 99 years in the shallow grave. So at this time, I'm going to talk a little bit about DNA integration. So Thomas Kent's body has been in the shallow grave for 99 years. That fragments DNA. And I'm just going to do a comparison. Imagine we had to form chromosomes. The chromosomes actually have DNA. The stream of DNA is going around the chromosome. It's compacted into a chromosome. So if you have the DNA and make it a long stretch, you will have, as we heard earlier, we had 22 pairs plus 2. We had 23 or rather we had 23 copies chromosomes. One of them being the X or the Y chromosome. So if you pull it out, you can think about it as a spaghetti. And every year it dries spaghetti. And every year you whack it with a hammer. And you can see the spaghetti pieces being smaller and smaller and smaller the whole time. And if you do that 99 times, you can think yourself about the dry spaghetti. You don't have much left. It's basically powder. So when we work with contemporary DNA, what we do is do our best to make sure it's not degraded. So we're using gloves, we're using DNA preservatives, ethanol and all kinds of things to make sure that the DNA is of high quality. We have freezers. That's a minus 80 freezer, for instance, where you can keep the DNA and make sure it's very, very good condition. This is from Action Thomas Casework. We worked with Math Protection and so on to avoid any contamination because of contemporary DNA. It's so much higher quality than the old DNA. These guys doing the lab work here has actually been working on 8,000 year old remains from Poland. And there's a little bit of a nice story from there which came out of the Thomas Kent analysis. But we're doing our best to work with fresh DNA, to have high quality DNA. What happened here, and that's what the police force realized or our friends at Ireland realized, is that these pieces of spaghetti were too short. They were less than 100 to 450 letters. The pieces were too small to be used for micro satellites or SDR analysis. So they couldn't work with that at all. So micro satellites were not an option. So this is when they contact us. And what happens, and what makes it so unique, is that the Ron Pinhasse lab has developed a way of getting DNA from a specific bone in the human body that it can get from very, very, very old remains. And that was the next generation conference. It was about sequencing. I had nothing to do with Thomas Kent at all. A month before the police contacted me. So I knew about Ron Pinhasse's lab and that they were really good at getting old DNA. And I was doing population genetics. And we got the conditions in Ireland were absolutely right. It was almost a fluke. It was so right that we could do this. We had the people who could get the DNA. We had the statisticians, and we had the population geneticists all talking to each other at the same time. So I brought in Ron Pinhasse's lab and I brought in John Finarelli's lab. And we started working on this bone here, which is called the Petros bone. So I went down to Cork, to the Cork morgue and got the Petros bone. Why the Petros bone? This is the densest bone in your body. What that means is that it has this really, really heavy so the DNA in there lies protected from the environment. And you have to drill this bone in a special way to get the DNA out. So basically you drill the hole and you take away the first part of the hole, basically. Don't use that powder at all because it's contaminated from the outside and then you use the inner parts of it. But if you drill, it's working at too high speed. You increase the temperature too much and what happens is you burn the DNA and you won't get any DNA. So it's a very, very fine-tuned operation to do. This method has not even been published yet. It was one of the methods that we had to work with for Thomas Cairns. It's only a few people in the world that know how to do this. So, what happens was that the Rompinaceae lab got the DNA out of the petrol's bone and they gave it to us and it was very fermented. We decided to go for something called the mind seed from its next generation sequencing but the beauty of it is this. It's only 65 base pairs. No need for 450 base pairs or so. So only 65 base pairs is what we needed. That's 65 methods, not 450 as the forensics people would need. We also realized that Thomas Cairns actually had a brother that had a offspring. So there were a bit of nieces around them. Two nieces were actually driving this whole Thomas Cairns identification. We managed to get blood samples from the two nieces and we thought, no, we have a template but it's not supposed to be 100% matched because these are not identical twins, obviously, to Thomas Cairns. They're nieces. And then we can do a calculation and if you do that, we use something called Kweller and Wutnikes, Rx and Y and I'll tell you later about that but what it tells you is they should have 25% degrees or 25% relatedness to Mr. X if Mr. X is Thomas Cairns. We chose to use the single nucleotide polymorphism. We heard about them in the previous talk. It was great, so there are single nucleotides that differ. And how they look? Again, we have the sequence here for one individual or two individuals. One individual here, each rows, actually one sequence and they should go down if you find a region with a differ. Most of them have a T in here but in some individuals or some sequences, we get an A. So that's a TA single nucleotide polymorphic site. So that's a snip. So those are the ones we try to interrogate with our 65 base pair shotgun sequencing and on the DNA strand this is basically what happens. They differ by one base pair. So this is what we did. I'm not going to go into detail with this. This is just a library preparation so you can do your next generation sequencing. But what I would say is next generation sequencing has revolutionised the world of genetics completely. When I did my first next generation sequencing run probably back in 2012, we used an old system called 454 but when I got my data back I had generated more genetic data than my university had previously done throughout its history from one row. The second one I did a couple of years later I generated more data than the university had done previously. You think the computers are developing fast but more slow and the number of CPUs you can fit to the number of transistors I think it is on the chip and how they increase. Genetics are outpacing computer development by an order of magnitude. So it's getting faster, better, cheaper and more all the time. I won't go into details about this of course. So what we did was we sequenced the shotgun sequencing it's called shotgun which means we're not targeting specific regions when you run a snip chip that we've heard about before and it's 23 mean so when they use snip chips they're looking for certain parts of the genome we're looking for everything because we have so little DNA to go for so we're basically trying all the sequences we can. So the expected results and you see the share number of data here is expected 8 million sequences from each of these three individuals Mr. X needs one and needs two. So we generated total 24 million sequences and if you did that with Sanger sequencing which is the method previous to next generation sequencing it's about six euros in sequence those six times 24 million is what it would have cost them using the old methods. So what we wanted was this we have all our small sequences here 65 base pairs and up here we should have the human genome which is available so that's available in public repositories and then we would line our sequences up we basically map them towards the human genome and we will find positions where they differ from the human genome on average so we can identify single nucleotide polymorphic sites. So this is what we wanted so we then we should download the SNP specific allele frequencies these are the frequencies of how often do we have an A or a T at a certain position from a thousand genomes project which is also available for the public. The idea was if Mr. Rex is Thomas Kent then Thomas Kent's nieces should have a relatedness of 0.25 to Mr. Rex. As a control the two nieces they were sisters according to old paperwork and according to themselves and so on they should have a relatedness of 0.5 this is using the coiler and goodnight to symmetric our XY the importance of the symmetric is because we share probably what 99 percent of our DNA across all humanity not even more so it's not simply a little sharing if we have a population that's slightly inbred which would be every population in the world this still resets the zero relatedness to zero so no matter how inbred the population is that you're looking at both siblings always have a relatedness of 0.5 even though in reality sharing they probably have 0.98 or something so that's why we use the coiler and goodnight to symmetric our XY and this is what we got we did not get a lot of sequences so we can pull them up like this and this is what we got so Mr. Rex didn't generate eight million sequences only seven million sequences and of those only 26 percent were human the rest of it was bacterial and other things you find in the soil Thomas Cantonese 1 and 2 generated a high percent of human DNA human sequences about 80 percent and they were new samples so this is the difference between working with all degenerated DNA and contemporary DNA and why don't they get 100 percent well your blood has other organisms in it actually more microbial cells in you than there are human cells so there are a lot of microbes in there as well so this is what we got only rarely have we more than one sequence or one spot of the human genome and that's when we started scratching our heads like what have we done all these estimators demand that we have both the fathers and the mothers DNA in you we had the mothers or the fathers and we didn't know which so that was our problem so shotgun sequencing generated very low read depth and with read depth we talk about how often we read the same area of the genome very very low mostly just once it was slightly expected due to the degenerated or the graded DNA that we expected and remains that been left out for 99 years so we only got one read per SNP locus and virtually no heterozygals and the heterozygals we heard about before and the previous talk was great so you can get A A that means that you're a homozygot you got an A from the mother and an A from the father you get an A and a C you got one, the A from the mother or the father and the C from the mother or the father but you have two versions heterozygals, not one the other one is called homozygals if you have CC you're homozygals if you have an AC you're heterozygals so we virtually have no heterozygals so we're thinking analyze as homozygals only half the genome if you just look at this as homozygals do you expect the relatedness because we're looking at only half the genome would be 0.25 between full siblings and offspring uncles, half siblings grandchildren and so on should have a relatedness of 0.125 instead of 0.25 because we're only looking at half the genome so we started working with this and what we developed were statistical and mathematical scripts to what we call forced homozygosity so even if they were heterozygals we randomly picked one of the variants, the A or the C throughout the genome on these individuals so it forced them to be heterozygals or homozygals and then we analyzed them and what we got from that was the relatedness between these one and these two of 0.279 and the expected value for full siblings which they supposedly were and I believe they are is 0.25 so this is a number that was very close to what we expected but lo and behold that doesn't mean much because we're able to say that yes there are siblings and we need that so bring it down to Thomas Kent or Mr. Rex Mr. Rex and these one had a relatedness of 0.134 which is very close to the 0.125 Mr. Rex and these two 0.124 so now these numbers look pretty darn great to me at least but how short are we about this how do we know that if we don't throw anyone else into this system that they show up with the same relatedness so what we ended up with simulations and this is a big part of the project so we simulated two different relatedness related individuals in each of these categories so I'll show you here so this is Thomas Kent and these one and two they're shared on 3,500 SNPs now those are not the same they're shared with Thomas Kent or Mr. Rex they're unique SNPs in each of these situations so they're shared on 3,500 we simulated an unrelated individual using the thousand genomes data set and we made them homozygals and they should have a relatedness of 0 if they're unrelated and they do have a relatedness of 0 so this is just a histogram showing you how many times did we hit the exact number 0 here and the spread of it so the spread of this shows you the statistical power of your analysis the height of it shows you how many individuals follow the relatedness classes and these are all simulated individuals that we forced to be homozygals this is a 0.125 group the second order of the real relatedness is 0.25 but because we looked at half the genome half that's the 0.125 this is the result from that and there is the full sibling group and the sisters go straight into it which was very good we're quite sure we could identify these as siblings so Thomas Kent and niece one they shared some 1,500 SNPs and their relatedness was here so these now we are going down in SNPs we used that over in excess of 3,000 now in half that the statistical power goes down but this is two times an unrelated individual 2,500 siblings both the nieces and 2,000 full siblings were all simulated and we had this and they were falling right in between there's actually no overlap with the others and the last sibling niece number two and again we have some 1,300 SNPs and they fall right in the middle so we were quite convinced that this is actually Mr Rex is actually Thomas Kent and there's an uncle to these two nieces we were quite convinced about that so that's what we brought in the statistician so how sure are we about this less than a million that we were wrong the odds that we were wrong were less than 1 in the million now that's a big number but then we also tested what's the likelihood of Thomas of Mr Rex not being related according to either half sibling uncle or close relatives so there's something about from that it's quite good in excess of 5 trillion times more likely that Mr Rex was related to the nieces to not being related the 5 trillion is a hard number to understand we're about now what 6 or 7 billion people on the planet there will never be and there never has been if you combine all humanity 5 trillion people on this planet it just won't happen that number is too big so we're quite happy with the results we concluded in our conclusions that Mr Rex was indeed Thomas Kent that's it thank you guys that was fabulous this really has been pioneering work because the processes that you used in this identification process a lot of the you actually developed from scratch yourself and Excel is your friend or enemy the first simulations we did took just to do one of those relatedness classes and we hadn't told them mine we had three relatedness classes and we had three different tests one of those would take a week using Excel so take it off a long time we now streamline that and we can do this very very very very well now there's a lot of interest in ancient DNA and already at the conference we've talked about identifying world war 1 soldiers who are found in the green fields of France we've also talked about the Barrymore project where they're actually digging up the early Barrymore from the 1770s and trying to analyse his DNA there really have been some huge advances and I think it's very interesting to see the differences between the work that you have done and the traditional work that forensic laboratories do it's very very different the forensics have invested so much into this STR microsatellite way of doing analysis and they're unlikely to change in the coming 10 years really? because they really should shouldn't they? but microsatellites are brilliant for contemporary data contemporary DNA it's popular and when you talk about the degradedness of the DNA what was the average read length of a segment it was way before below 450 base pairs 65 is what you had pretty much nothing out of Thomas Campbell larger than 65 is so for that kind of read length you're really looking for NGS testing rather than STR testing? yes that's one of the problems that I think is going to face us now the O'Brien's want to dig up some of their ancestors so we'll have to do NGS testing rather than STR testing particularly historic and ancient DNA let's have a few questions from the audience we're going to start with John Reid and then go to Jerry Cork Cork thank you very much this is fascinating I take it the other non-DNA evidence that you had like the length of the bones etc that you didn't talk about was all confirming the evidence and I'm wondering if the kind of technique you're using is now being considered for things like the Richard III case? the problem with Richard III is that we don't have any relatives questions from Jerry Cork? there are two questions if I may firstly I know we couldn't form a link with the MTD because he was the brother were you able to extract MTD DNA or Y-chromosome? Y-chromosome, yeah Y-chromosome is part of the step panel that we use and we can't say that he's in the mail but there are things we can never disclose the actual data because of privacy reasons okay the second question we are familiar with in housey lab and they do extraordinary work and we read all the papers and I think yet about a thousand samples of the lab and we're looking forward to the new papers coming out and those how does the other lab the population genetics lab in New Zealand? how does that work? what type of projects are you working on? we usually work with a variety of organisms but genetics is a wonderful field because it's generic so you can move from fish to birds back to humans and that's not the problem the biologist is the same DNA is DNA so it doesn't matter it's very easy to move in between the fields and I've been doing a lot of studies on relatedness analysis of fish okay we have a question here from Sean Quinn so I'm going to give you the microphone Sean this is a very simple question last week by coincidence I posted a kid off to family tree DNA that person whose great-grandparent was a kid and there's a family story that they're related to Thomas Kent so are these nieces DNA is it out there on a jet match you couldn't persuade them to do so I'm not responsible for that I never met the nieces in person it's been done by the police in which means we're purely scientific lab and stay away from anything else nice try Sean we'll be having a conversation I'm representing court genealogical society I attended your presentation in UCC absolutely below with the methodology what is missing from this presentation is actually the contextual information of the likelihood of a person being buried in that location the condition of the body and the records behind it as well the newspaper articles so I think with Thomas Kent you've got best of both worlds you've got the historical information we were not really identifying Thomas Kent we were confirming but that's what we did there were so much evidence saying that this would be Thomas Kent and the other thing I've actually come to ask you I've been sent to some of our DNA group to see if the DNA will ever be made available and doesn't look like it's going to be it's not very likely at all we've got several people you shouldn't talk to me you should talk to John Burns over at the police that's not my call at all okay thank you very much well I suppose Thomas Kent had he'll have relatives on the direct mail line if you go up far enough on his great grandfather and then coming down we probably could have a direct mail line but did you get why DNA that would be viable for analysis from the samples well we've got snipped there are a number of snips from the white chromosome and I obviously can't tell you how many anything about it you can't tell us how many why steps so what we do is we do confirmation what we do is we get the DNA results back we look for why DNA so we can confirm it's a male then we take the Y DNA away because it doesn't have to relate to this calculation because it's not on the female side at all so we take that away literally so we don't I can't give you that information it's part of our record of course so it is possible to extract the Y DNA from the genome that you're able to recover and then maybe you could potentially this is why this is different than your snip chips your snip chips find markers you don't search for something you interrogate for what you have you have a probe that finds what you're looking for shockwave sequencing finds everything there might be genes in there that have rare diseases that's totally confidential that's why we can't give the data out if it was a snip chip we could do the snip chip but that's not the case for this type of approach with shockwave sequencing I think the question came up particularly with regards to the arrows barring the work it could be extract and separate out the Y chromosome and then look at that genome and look for snips in the Y chromosome to then identify some snips that might also be present in present day descendants along that direct male line I don't think that would have been a problem at all the shockwave sequencing will find your Y chromosome if it's a question of inequality rather than anything else that's very very good to hear one question then how do we persuade forensic labs to change the way they work well for them this is not a high priority no one was going to get brought to court for Thomas count so it has very little use for them and the investment for them would be enormous they spent so much money so much time you talk to me about your STR you talk about all the distributions that's all known that's thanks to all this investment and if you move into another field using next generation sequencing instead talking about 10, 15 years down the road before they would do anything like that how much did all this cost can you give us a figure well this was a total free before the Irish state oh so it's free no it was so it was a lot of money no it sucks me back to the perfectly honest now if you had time to because we had to develop new techniques there were none of them that's ever done this before so that took an awful long time long time so we're talking about salaries for the workload yeah that would be very expensive would have been, it's not now but the consumable costs are probably 2500 euros or something well that's very reasonable really so that means that all of us here will be thinking now what of my ancestors could I go and again I'll take a comment from Patrick Kennedy I may be off the subject but there's another Thomas Thomas M. Kettle he was a Cambodian UCD auditor of the history society he enjoyed for that job and he was killed and he wrote the famous sonnet to his daughter that he was there neither for King nor King King or Heizer but for the sacred scriptures and four days later he was dead and his remains have not been found now the Irish government and people like that would you be able to advise them we wouldn't need them we're doing that a side story here is that John Byrne that police representative is now also a master's student in our lab so we're working very closely with the police and how to develop techniques and how to employ the latest genetic techniques in forensics so we're working with them already the problem we have is that UCD cannot go out and analyze the Thomas camp whatsoever because we don't have the permission and to work with human subjects in the university world is that much of text and form should have to fill in but if the state demands that you do it it's much easier did you hear the excellent lecturers our good friend here I don't think we're here it is something that you should examine it will be up on YouTube at some stage at some stage great well one final question for you gents obviously we are a community of genealogists and a community of genetic genealogists as well how do you think what we do is going to impact on what you do over the course of the next 10 years pedigrees are very important but not only from a human perspective what we're looking at is farmed animals pedigrees are extremely important we do work a little bit we have a couple of pedigrees we have a PhD student from one of these we've got access to all these lip trips and stuff like that fantastic stuff to play around with but also salmon farming for instance where you have anything that has been selected that whole idea of bringing animals into an enclosure and then breed on them to have different traits leads to inbreeding even diary to realize that so the question is can we go in with genetics get good pedigrees and avoid inbreeding as much as possible zoos for instance so using pedigrees is something that's very very important into any care of animals be it for zoos bees for productions and so on and many animals in the zoo for instance you don't know who's doing what with who it's not to do anything that hurts it's not the afterwards that you can find out using genetics who did it with who well listen thank you so much for a fantastic presentation I think we've learned a huge amount from today I think you've created a lot of ideas in people's minds and we're all targeting certain ancestors and our family trees wondering are they very below the ground or above the ground and how many forms will they have to fill in and I think the comments you've made about the methodology are also very interesting and that's something we will take away and work on as a genetic genealogy community so just thank you very very much for a wonderful presentation