Site icon Tech Tips

Denisovans And Neanderthals Made Long-Term

Neanderthal and denisovan found near the autism gene in modern humans. One of the most interesting questions about hominid evolution is how much of our missing cousins live in us. Between 1 and 4 percent of the modern human genome is derived from Neanderthals everywhere except in sub-Saharan Africa.

neanderthal and denisovan

Furthermore, between 4 and 6 percent of the modern Melanesian genome has been shown to be derived from a different species of archaic hominids, the Denisovans. Now, a new paper focused on comparing a specific type of genetic variation has found evidence that Denisovans and Neanderthals made long-term, large-scale positive contributions to the human genome.

Our understanding of the impact of these changes is currently limited, but they occur in an interesting place. Most studies comparing differences in human populations (or differences between archaic and modern hominids) focus on adaptive single nucleotide variants (SNVs). It was a single nucleotide variation that gave archaic Northwestern Europeans the ability to digest lactose, and the ability to do so is a textbook case of human natural selection.

denisovan and neanderthal

The image below shows the prevalence of lactase persistence in adults as a percentage of the total population. The single nucleotide variations found in Tibetan genomes are associated with greater adaptation to high-altitude conditions. These originated in the Denisovan genome. While the addition of Denisovan occurred long before the adaptation for adult lactase digestion, both have been conserved (meaning they have been maintained since early evolution).

This new research does not focus on SNVs. Instead, he analyzed the modern Melanesian genome for signs of copy number variants (CNVs). Copy number variation occurs when the copy number of an entire gene differs between individuals. For example, Huntington’s disease occurs when a specific subclass of the huntingtin gene is duplicated to the point of causing an alteration in protein production.

Denisovan or Neanderthal genomes

CNVs are much larger than SNVs and exert very strong selective pressure. Any evidence of conserved CNV in Melanesian populations that could be traced back to Denisovan or Neanderthal genomes would therefore be evidence that these variants provided an advantage. One thing to keep in mind is that the impact of CNVs on the human genome is an active area of study.

Historically, SNVs have attracted much more attention. The discovery of conserved CNVs in Melanesian populations of archaic Denisovans and Neanderthals is significant in itself. However, it is not yet clear what the variations actually do. Part of the difficulty in analyzing CNVs is the fact that they are much larger than SNVs, with many potential effects.

Denisovan and Neanderthal contribution

The researchers found two different CNVs: one linked to the Denisovan genome and one linked to Neanderthal. Seventy-nine percent of Melanesian chromosomes carry repeats at 16p11.2> 383,000 base pairs (kbp) that originated in Denisovans and were introduced into the original population 60,000-170,000 years ago.

The second variation was introduced by Neanderthals and is followed by about 44 percent of modern Melanesians. It is located on chromosome 8p21.3 and contains a -6 kbp deletion and a -38 kbp duplication. What’s particularly interesting about Denisovan other than the human genome is its location.

neanderthal and denisovan DNA

According to the researchers, the specific region of 16p11.2 that they originally identified as Denisovan is part of a locus that “shows an enrichment of complex recurrent structural rearrangements that predispose humans to another form of autism,” attributed to the most common genetic cause… represents about 1% of patients.

To be more specific, Denisovan’s CNV is directly adjacent to the region of the chromosome where genes have been associated with autism.

This specific segment of the human genome is known to be unstable and prone to breakage errors. Previous research on 16p11.2 found that a previously repetitive transfer of the BOLA2 gene approximately 282,000 years ago “simultaneously increased the number of copies of genes associated with iron homeostasis and made our species predisposed to disease-associated recessive rearrangements.”

human genome

The fact that Denisovans’ contribution to the human genome is 1). Huge 2). 16p11.2, and built in the metaphorical swamp of 3). The highly preserved suggests that it was important to maintain it. Neanderthal CNVs include TNFRSF10D (tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily 10D). According to the researchers, “TNFRSF10D has been reported to be one of the primate-specific genes preferentially expressed in progenitor cells of the human embryonic neocortex.”

What does this all mean?

Honest answer: nobody is sure. The researchers believe that these genes likely gave the Melanesians an evolutionary advantage, perhaps related to their life in a different tropical environment. The study authors wrote:

Our results collectively suggest that large CNVs originating in archaic hominids and introgressing into modern humans may have played an important role in local population adaptation and represent a source of large-scale genetic variation. inadequately studied scale.

The problems of the CNV’s analysis have made its implementation difficult until now. The application of these technologies suggests that we may see them becoming more widely used in the future, but the novelty of the approach means that we may be exploring what these versions do for some time. Written with the help of Jessica Hall. Comparison of featured images of early Homo sapiens with Homo neanderthalensis.

Neanderthal male and female

Neanderthals’ ears were designed to hear speech, just like modern humans. Reconstruction of Neanderthal men and women. Virtual reconstructions of Neanderthal ears show that our extinct cousins had the same physical ability to hear as modern humans, and that we could make the same sounds inferentially, although it is still unknown whether they actually spoke a language.

“We don’t know if they had a language, but at least they had all the necessary bodily parts for the type of speech we have,” says Mercedes Conde-Valverde of the University of Alcalá in Spain. “It’s not that they had a single language, not English, not Spanish, anything like that. But if we could listen to them, we would recognize that they are human.”


Conde-Valverde and her colleagues used medical imaging software to create virtual reconstructions of the Neanderthal middle and outer ear cavities based on CT scans of their skulls. With these models, they could determine the range of sounds Neanderthals could hear, and thus likely originated as speech. This technique has previously been used to study speech and hearing in other ancient humans and chimpanzees.

The team did the same with a group of fossils called Sima de los Huesos hominids, which are believed to be the immediate ancestors of Neanderthals. The results showed that, unlike these ancestors, Neanderthals had hearing abilities similar to modern humans. Neanderthal hearing was adapted to produce the consonants that often appear in modern human languages, such as “s,” “k,” “t,” and “th,” in the same way that we have hearing, says Condé. Valverde.

archaeological evidence

While we don’t know if this means they had the mental capacity for language development, Conde-Valverde says that recent archaeological evidence, including the use of stone tools, jewelry-making, and art, alludes to complex behavior in Neanderthals. language ability. “It makes it harder to dismiss the fact that they probably had some kind of speech,” says Dan Dedieu of Lumiere Université Lyon 2 in France. It was probably similar to ours, but not identical, he says.


Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestors met hominid “supernaturalists” who were separated from other humans approximately 2 million years ago. A new study by researchers at the University of Utah’s Anthropology Department suggests that it is more than 700,000 years ago. The ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans interbred with their Eurasian predecessors who were members of a ‘super-Achaia’ population separated from other humans approximately 2 million years ago.

The first Neanderthals lived in Sima de los Housos. A cave site in the Atapurca Mountains, Spain. Image from Scientific Films. The study’s lead author, Professor Alan Rogers of the University of Utah, said: We never knew about this episode of mistaken identity and we could never estimate the size of the overpopulated population. We are highlighting an interval in human evolutionary history that was previously completely obscure.


Professor Rogers and his colleagues studied the ways in which mutations are shared between Neanderthals and modern African and European and ancient Denisovans. The pattern of exchange included five episodes of misunderstanding, with one unknown. The newly discovered episodes include an incorrectly related “superchat” population over 700,000 years ago that separated from all other humans approximately 2 million years ago, and the ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans.

modern humans and Neanderthals

The ancestral superchain and Neanderthal-Denisovan populations were more remotely related than any other pair of human populations to cross first. For example, modern humans and Neanderthals separated for approximately 750,000 years when they crossed. The super-cystic and Neanderthal-Denisovan ancestors were separated for more than a million years.

Professor Rogers said: This is about the time the crossing in the human lineage occurred, something that is said about how long it takes to develop.

The researchers used other clues in the genome to separate ancient human populations and estimate their effective population size. They estimated that superchaics diverged in their species approximately 2 million years ago. This corresponds to 1.85 million years of human fossil evidence in Eurasia. An evolutionary tree consisting of four proposed gene flow episodes.


An earlier unknown event 744,372 years ago (orange) indicates that there was a cross between the Superchoike and Neanderthal-Denisovan ancestors in Eurasia. Scientists also proposed that there were three waves of human migration to Eurasia. The first was more than 2 million years ago when Superchaikos migrated to Eurasia and spread to a large population.

Then, 700,000 years ago, the Neanderthal-Denisovan ancestors migrated to Eurasia and quickly crossed paths with the descendants of the Supercheat. Finally, modern humans expanded 50,000 years ago to Eurasia, where we know that they interbred with other ancient humans, including Neanderthals. Professor Rogers said: I have been working for the past few years on this different method of analyzing genetic data to learn history.

Neanderthal and Denisovans

It’s gratifying that you can think of a different way to look at the data and discover things that people haven’t seen in other ways. Neanderthal-Denisovan ancestors interfered with a distant hominid. Previous research has shown that modern Eurasians interfere with their Neanderthal and Denisovan predecessors. We show here that hundreds of thousands of years ago.

The ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans interfered with their Eurasian predecessors. Who were members of a “supercica” population distinct from other humans 2 million years ago. The population of the supercarica was large, with an effective size of between 20 and 50 thousand people.

We confirm previous findings that –

  • (i) Denisovans also interfered with supercarics
  • (ii) Neanderthals and Denisovans diverged in the early Middle Pleistocene
  • (iii) Their ancestors suffered population size restrictions Y
  • (iv) Neanderthal’s population was higher than before
  • (v) But then it decreased in size. We provide qualified support for the view that..
  • (vi) Neanderthals interfere with the ancestors of modern humans

During the past decade, we learned about interactions between hominid populations when modern humans expanded to Eurasia (1-3) more than 50,000 years ago. Here, we had to focus on the events that took place a year and a half ago. In this early period, the ancestors of modern humans separated from Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Neanderthals and Denisovans separate

After a time, Neanderthals and Denisovans separate. Significant changes have been recorded in mythology and archeology of the time, as large-brained hominids appear in Europe and Asia, and Echlin’s instruments (4, 5) appear in Europe. However, it is unclear how these large-brain homicins relate to other modern or arctic human populations (6–9).

We studied the period using genetic data from modern African and European peoples and two archaic populations, Neanderthals and Denisovans. Configure1 reflects our belief. The capital letter refers to the pop erection, and combinations such as XY refer to ancestral populations of X and Y. X represents an African (Yoruba) population.

random nucleotides

Y is a European population, N is Neanderthal and D is Denisovan. S. is a random “superchurch” population that is distantly related to other humans. 1 label “nucleotide site pattern” in the lower letters of fig. A nucleotide site shows an X and N site pattern if populations of X, Y, and N populations have alleles derived from random nucleotides.

But samples from other populations are ancestral. The site pattern probabilities can be calculated from population history models, and their frequencies can be estimated from the data. Our Legofit (10) software estimates the parameters of these relative frequencies using a fitted model. The nucleotide site pattern contains only part of the information available in the genome sequence data.

Cave in Croatia

This is particularly relevant to the study of the part. The history of deep populations. Site pattern frequencies are unaffected by recent population history because they neglect the population component within variation. This reduces the number of parameters we must forecast and allows us to focus on the distant past.

Current data includes two high-coverage Neanderthal genomes: one from the Altai Mountains of Siberia and the other from Scindia of Cave in Croatia. Instead of assigning our Neanderthal fossils to different populations, our model assumes that they inhabited the same population at different times. This implies that our estimate of the Neanderthal population size would refer to any other latset rather than the Neanderthal metapopulation.

Neanderthal population

Altai and Vindeja appear on the Neanderthal site tag as “A” and “V”. Therefore, the AV site is the pattern in which the derived allele appears only in the sample nucleotides of the two Neanderthen genomes. Figure shows the site pattern frequencies studied here. In contrast to our previous analysis, the current analysis includes singleton, X, Y, V, A and D site patterns, as recommended by Amphasani and Proofer.

A simple table, excluding the Vindhya genome, is included as fig. S2.Image graphic characters. Label Entry Episode. We build the model by drawing Greek letters to indicate the letters we include. Our model does not include Denisovan gene flow in Modern-Orns, as there is little evidence of such gene flow in Europe. Two years ago, we studied a model that included only one episode.


Which refers to gene flow from Neanderthal to European. The left panel of 3 shows the residuals of this model using new data. Many are far from zero, suggesting that something is missing from the model. The relevant literature suggests some that may be missing. There is evidence of a supercaric population entering Denisovans. Which was distantly related to other humans and also to the entry of early modern people into Neanderthals.

These episodes from entry number 1 are as follows and presume. Adding to the model improved the fit, although none of the resulting models was satisfactory. For example, the model example estimates (presumably) that isolated superacts from other hominids before 7 million years (Ma) make sense considering what might still be missing and  considering that we might have been in the early Middle Pleistocene.

The first European Neanderthal ancestors

Right now, big-minded hominins appear in Europe with Aceh-lean stone tools (4, .5). They were probably African immigrants, with fossils and similar instruments previously found in Africa. According to one hypothesis, these were the first European Neanderthal ancestors. The “Neanderson” descendants of the Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestors were separated from the lineages that led to modern humans.

Neandersovans are separated from the African population and can then spread to Eurasia. The results were published in the Journal Science Advance. Why are we closer to human development than ever! Dating when our ancestors separated from Neanderthals and other relatives has long been a puzzle, but advances in DNA are clearing up our evolutionary journey.

advances in DNA

Artistic representation of the hominids of Sima de los Hussos, estimated to have lived around 400,000 years ago. Anthropologists and geneticists had a problem. And when they looked back, the problem got worse. Over the past few years, there have been two main genetic methods for dating evolutionary divergences, when our ancestors were separated from Neanderthals, chimpanzees, and other relatives.

The problem was that there was almost a double difference in the results of these methods. According to one estimate, modern humans separated from Neanderthals about 300,000 years ago. On the other hand, the division was closer to 600,000 years ago. Similarly, modern humans and chimpanzees may have strayed about 6.5 or 13 million years ago.

Establish evolutionary relationships

Surprised by this wild disagreement, researchers with different backgrounds study it from different angles. Their joint findings, recently reviewed here and here, have described how genetic differences increase over time and advanced methods of genetic dating. If in doubt, yes, they’ve also outlined important events in our evolutionary timeline. Everyone is alive today, sharing ancestors with Neanderthals 200,000 years ago and 765,000-550,000 years ago.

Molecular Clock Dating

Go back in time to find the Homo sapiens population that were the ancestors of everyone living today. Coming and going and our lineage meets Neanderthals, then chimpanzees, and finally all primates, mammals, and life. To date, these evolutionary divisions, geneticists have relied on the molecular clock: the idea that genetic changes accumulate at a constant rate over time.

Of particular concern are mutations that become neutral substitutions, or permanent changes in the letters of the genetic code that do not affect the chances of survival and regeneration of the organism. If such mutations occur clockwise, then calculate the time from the common ancestor that the two organisms shared should be as easy as dividing the number of genetic differences between them by the mutation rate, the same rate as that..


Dividing the distance gives you travel time. For decades, anthropologists used fossil calibration to generate the so-called phylogenetic rate (a phylogeny is a tree that shows evolutionary relationships). They took the geological age of the fossils from the evolutionary branch points and calculated the intensity of the mutations that would have occurred with the resulting lineage.

For example, the first fossils in the human branch after our separation from chimpanzees are identified by the fact that they walk on two legs; Bipedalism is the first clear distinction that separates our descendants from the evolution of chimpanzees. These fossils are between 7 and 6 million years old, and therefore the division between chimpanzees and humans must be around that age.

modern humans from Africa

Dividing the number of genetic differences between living and human chimpanzees by 6.5 million years provides a mutation rate. Determined as well applied to the genome with 6 billion base pairs, this means that, on average, millions of years of chimpanzees and human evolution, there has been an average of six changes in the letters of the genetic code per year.

This rate can be used to date evolutionary events that are not evident from fossils, such as the spread of modern humans from Africa. But genetic dating went wild in 2010. When improvements in DNA sequencing allowed researchers to determine the amount of genetic differences between parents and their children.

Known as genealogical analysis, it provides a more direct measurement of current mutation rates within a generation rather than an average of millions of years. The pedigree analysis counts mutations of 60-something in each generation. This rate becomes about half of the phylogenetic estimate, which means that evolutionary events will be twice as old.

The uncertain molecular clock

Solving this disagreement led researchers to reassure and revise their initial beliefs. How accurately did they count the difference between the genomes of parents and children! Were fossils assigned to the correct branches of the evolutionary tree and above all, how stable is the molecular clock!

This suggests that among primates, the molecular clock varies significantly by species, sex, and type of mutation. A recent study found that New World monkeys (i.e., monkeys from the Americas. Such as marmosets and squirrel monkeys) have a replacement rate of approximately 64% higher than that of monkeys (including humans.

Within apes, there are approximately 7% more gorillas and 2% more chimpanzees than humans. Calculation of the date of the division of the human chimpanzee. But even among humans, mutation rates vary, especially between the sexes with age. As parents grow older, they acquire one additional DNA mutation per year that they can pass on to children.

developmental & reproductive variables

Mothers, on the other hand, change significantly less with each passing year. When you consider what these species and sex differences do. Most inherited mutations are the result of errors when DNA copies itself in the germline or in the cells that produce eggs and sperm. Many times the germline DNA itself has to be copied, depending on developmental and reproductive variables.

Including age at puberty, reproductive age, and the sperm production process. These traits differ in primates today, and certainly in primate development. For example, the average generation time for New World monkeys is six years, 19 years for gorillas, 25 years for chimpanzees, and 29 years for humans. What about those additional mutations as the father ages!

Sperm are produced continuously after puberty. So sperm formed later in life are the result of more rounds of DNA replication and opportunities for replication errors. By contrast, a mother’s egg broth is formed from birth. Rather than replication errors, small increases with maternal damage may be due to mutations of DNA damage.

Backward dating methods

It is now clear that a mutation rate cannot determine dates for all differences related to human development. However, researchers can secure the timeline for important evolutionary events by combining new genetic dating methods with fossil and geological ages. Newer computational methods have included reproduction variables in the calculations. Taking into account reproductive age, the age of male puberty, and sperm production rates.

The researchers have estimated the partial time that accompanies the fossil record. Another new approach has looked at mutations that are primarily independent of DNA replication. Some kinds of DNA damage-related mutations appear to behave more clockwise and some researchers have focused on ancient DNA. Comparison of current human fossils from the past 50,000 years suggests a mutation rate that is consistent with genealogical analysis.

Neanderthal dynasty by morphological

At least one evolutionary division was knocked down in 2016 after ancient DNA was extracted from a 430,000-year-old hominid fossil from Sima de los Housos, Spain. Sima’s hominids looked like early members of the Neanderthal dynasty by morphological similarity. This hypothesis is adjusted for the time of division between Neanderthals and modern humans according to hereditary analysis 550,000 years ago.

But they did not work with plant genetic estimates 275,000 years ago. Where are the hominids of Sima in our family tree! Were they the ancestors of Neanderthals and modern humans, only Neanderthals, or neither? DNA definitely answered this. Sima hominids belong to the Neanderthal branch as it divides with modern humans.

Furthermore, the result provides a firm time point in our family tree, suggesting that pedigree rates work for this period of human development. Neanderthals and modern humans probably date from 765,000-550,000 years ago. Other evolutionary divisions may be clarified soon, thanks to advances brought about by the mutation rate debate. Someday, when you see a chimpanzee, you can greet your great-great-grandparents with the correct number of greats.

Table of Contents

Exit mobile version