Neanderthals gave us disease genes

[Loki]

Neanderthals gave us disease genes (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25944817)

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72601000/jpg/_72601173_c0165202-homo_neanderthalensis_cranium_tabun_1_-spl.jpg

Gene types that influence disease in people today were picked up through interbreeding with Neanderthals, a major study in Nature journal suggests.

They passed on variants involved in type 2 diabetes, Crohn's disease and - curiously - smoking addiction.

Genome studies reveal that our species (Homo sapiens) mated with Neanderthals after leaving Africa.

But it was previously unclear what this Neanderthal DNA did and whether there were any implications for human health.

Between 2% and 4% of the genetic blueprint of present-day non-Africans came from Neanderthals.

By screening the genomes of 1,004 modern humans, Sriram Sankararaman and his colleagues identified regions bearing the Neanderthal versions of different genes.

That a gene variant associated with a difficulty in stopping smoking should be found to have a Neanderthal origin is a surprise.

It goes without saying that there is no suggestion our evolutionary cousins were puffing away in their caves.

Instead, the researchers argue, this mutation may have more than one function, so the modern effect of this marker on smoking behaviour may be one impact it has among several.

Pastures new

Researchers found that Neanderthal DNA is not distributed uniformly across the human genome, instead being commonly found in regions that affect skin and hair.

This suggests some gene variants provided a rapid way for modern humans to adapt to the new cooler environments they encountered as they moved into Eurasia. When the populations met, Neanderthals had already been adapting to these conditions for several hundred thousand years.

The stocky hunters once covered a range stretching from Britain to Siberia, but went extinct around 30,000 years ago as Homo sapiens was expanding from an African homeland.

Neanderthal ancestry was found in regions of the genome linked to the regulation of skin pigmentation.

"We found evidence that Neanderthal skin genes made Europeans and East Asians more evolutionarily fit," said Benjamin Vernot, from the University of Washington, co-author of a separate study in Science journal.

Genes for keratin filaments, a fibrous protein that lends toughness to skin, hair and nails, were also enriched with Neanderthal DNA. This may have helped provide the newcomers with thicker insulation against cold conditions, the scientists suggest.

"It's tempting to think that Neanderthals were already adapted to the non-African environment and provided this genetic benefit to (modern) humans," said Prof David Reich, from Harvard Medical School, co-author of the paper in Nature.

But other gene variants influenced human illnesses, such as type 2 diabetes, long-term depression, lupus, billiary cirrhosis - an autoimmune disease of the liver - and Crohn's disease. In the case of Crohn's, Neanderthals passed on different markers that increase and decrease the risk of disease.

Asked whether our ancient relatives actually suffered from these diseases too, or whether the mutations in question only affected the risk of illness when transplanted to a modern human genetic background, Mr Sankararaman said: "We don't have the fine knowledge of the genetics of Neanderthals to answer this," but added that further study of their genomes might shed light on this question.

Joshua Akey, from the University of Washington, an author of the Science publication, added: "Admixture happened relatively recently in evolutionary terms, so you wouldn't expect all the Neanderthal DNA to have been washed away by this point.

"I think what we're seeing to a large extent is the dying remains of this extinct genome as it is slowly purged from the human population."

Desert regions

However, some regions of our genomes were discovered to be devoid of Neanderthal DNA, suggesting that certain genes had such harmful effects in the offspring of modern human-Neanderthal pairings that they have indeed been flushed out actively and rapidly through natural selection.

"We find that there are large regions of the genome where most modern humans carry little or no Neanderthal ancestry," Mr Sankararaman told BBC News.

"This reduction in Neanderthal ancestry was probably due to selection against genes that were bad - deleterious - for us."

The Neanderthal-deficient regions encompass genes that are specifically expressed in the testes, and on the X (female sex) chromosome.

This suggests that some Neanderthal-modern human hybrids had reduced fertility and in some cases were sterile.

"It tells us that when Neanderthals and modern humans met and mixed, they were at the very edge of being biologically compatible," said Prof Reich.

Another genome region that lacked Neanderthal genes includes a gene called FOXP2, which is thought to play an important role in human speech.

Joshua Akey said his team's results were compatible with there having been multiple pulses of interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals.

[Loki]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140129134956.htm

[Loki]

bump

[Prisoner Of Ice]

But other gene variants influenced human illnesses, such as type 2 diabetes, long-term depression, lupus, billiary cirrhosis - an autoimmune disease of the liver - and Crohn's disease. In the case of Crohn's, Neanderthals passed on different markers that increase and decrease the risk of disease.


Some of these are probably mixed dominance.

But maybe people will stop saying race mixing doesn't cause any genetic problems, since we already know that's not true. It might even be the case that most of the chronic illnesses like those above are due to having genes that don't go well with other genes. That's been the case for some genes in bushmen that cause death in europeans but have no effect on them.

[arcticwolf]

They were badass. Light hair, light eyes. Without them we would look like the rest of the world, black hair, dark brown eyes. Not my cup of tea. Thank you Neanderthals! :thumb001:

[Caismeachd]

I wonder if the "long term depression" made neanderthal derived people see the world in a more pragmatic way than a spastic limbic impulsive way of some people.

[Neanderthal]

Boo boo, slander. Thumbs down.

[Loki]

Boo boo, slander. Thumbs down.

The BBC title is a bit misleading/sensationalist. As you can see from the article, we got both positives and negatives from Neanderthals.

2-4% genes from them is not much. But certain things seem to be strong/dominant. I think red hair and freckles are among them. I even see English/black mixes in the UK who have freckles sometimes, and reddish hair.

[Weedman]

so how come sub-Saharan Africans have diabetes and addiction to smoking too? not at a rate that dramatically different from anyone else?

[Loki]

so how come sub-Saharan Africans have diabetes and addiction to smoking too? not at a rate that dramatically different from anyone else?

They do?

[Axios]

i have diabetes... so this is cus i have Neanderthal DNA? dafuq?

[KidMulat]

Africans have Neanderthal DNA

[Axios]

Africans have Neanderthal DNA

Subsaharians nop, and what you mean as "Africans"? all "negroid" africans or just some countrys?

[Manifest Destiny]

Crohn's Disease?

I don't know why, but the thought of a caveman shitting his pants makes me laugh. :lol:

[Tropico]

Some of these are probably mixed dominance.

But maybe people will stop saying race mixing doesn't cause any genetic problems, since we already know that's not true. It might even be the case that most of the chronic illnesses like those above are due to having genes that don't go well with other genes. That's been the case for some genes in bushmen that cause death in europeans but have no effect on them.

What? lol Race mixing can cause problems, same race breeding can cause problems, breeding period can cause problems. Mutations, errors in meiosis, errors in cell division in the womb, accidental gene methylation, imbalance of sex chromosomes, you name it. Neanderthals and Humans were at the very edge of being biologically compatible, but the human races are more than compatible and overlap indefinitely.

[Tomorr]

Scientists have apparently discovered that crossbreeding with Neanderthals may have strengthened the human immune system.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/international/study-sex-with-neanderthals-likely-strengthened-human-immune-system/

[rhiannon]

Diabetes I and II run heavily in my family. My oldest brother died of type I.

Wish I knew what our Neandertal percentage was lol

My father quit smoking while he was alive and I quit many years ago myself. My mother can't seem to quit, though

Hmmmmm...

Article mentions my alma mater:thumb001::thumb001:

[The Illyrian Warrior]

Neanderthals were only one worth to be called Uber IMO...Great dudes, sad we don't have 'em among us. :(

[Caismeachd]

I wonder if neanderthal genetics created the ability of extreme focus. It would make sense. (I read a long time ago aspergers is linked to neanderthal genetics). Focusing on something in an extreme way (hyperfocusing) goes a long with things like depression or addictions like smoking and other repetitive ocd like qualities.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I wonder if the "long term depression" made neanderthal derived people see the world in a more pragmatic way than a spastic limbic impulsive way of some people.

I usually score as depressive on any tests but I function a lot better than 99% of the population so maybe it's the people who constantly smile and hobnob with random people who are mentally ill. I have friends that would take a bullet for me, I doubt many of these social butterfly types can honestly say that.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Crohn's Disease?

I don't know why, but the thought of a caveman shitting his pants makes me laugh. :lol:

It's basically an immune overresponse. It can be cured by using pinworms. So probably it is not a negative thing except in todays society, possibly it has other genes to go along with it and regulate it which some people don't have.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

i have diabetes... so this is cus i have Neanderthal DNA? dafuq?

Probably not, almost everyone has the HLA genes but it's only one variant that ;s 'broken'. It may not have been broken when neanderthals had it, either - it's mainly in mexicans and might be a founder effect mutation from one spanish man who came to americas.

[Caismeachd]

I have a good ability of focusing. For example at my work I am the most productive/best metrics consistantly out of almost 400 employees. It's almost an aspergers quality because I have had the same experience of success with other jobs but I am not aspergers. Though I also hyperfocus on other things like depressive things and so on. I don't think non Neanderthal derived people think that way. They are more impulsive and responsive of the moment instead.

[Caismeachd]

Living in harsh conditions must have created difficult pressures for the mind to mold and adapt to for survival. I wouldn't doubt it's all linked.

[Weedman]

They do?

why would anyone from sub-Sahara Africa be any less addicted to smoking than any other human?

as for diabetes, I dont know the RATE its found in Sub-Saharan African populations but Im pretty sure it sure as hell isnt rare or anything like that.

[KidMulat]

Subsaharians nop, and what you mean as "Africans"? all "negroid" africans or just some countrys?

STFU

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/early-africans-mated-with-mystery-species-of-humans/2012/07/26/gJQAxFzZBX_story.html

[Prisoner Of Ice]

why would anyone from sub-Sahara Africa be any less addicted to smoking than any other human?

as for diabetes, I dont know the RATE its found in Sub-Saharan African populations but Im pretty sure it sure as hell isnt rare or anything like that.

Because of different dopamine system. They are probably talking about dopamine receptor drd4 7r. Which is probably the main difference between europe and rest of the world as far as creativity goes. I'd hardly call that disadvantage.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

STFU

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/early-africans-mated-with-mystery-species-of-humans/2012/07/26/gJQAxFzZBX_story.html

That is obviously rhodiensiensis, not neanderthals. The genes in question are unique, and not where africa gets its neanderthal mix. If it were it would peak in frequency in the south, not the NE.

Sub saharan africans do have neanderthal genes, just fewer of them. Because out of africa is bunk and there's been countless incursion into africa proven by archaeology but not even one out of africa.

[KidMulat]

That is obviously rhodiensiensis, not neanderthals. The genes in question are unique, and not where africa gets its neanderthal mix. If it were it would peak in frequency in the south, not the NE.

Sub saharan africans do have neanderthal genes, just fewer of them. Because out of africa is bunk and there's been countless incursion into africa proven by archaeology but not even one out of africa.

They have yet to figure out for sure what it is; they aren't even positive of the exact Neanderthal range or even point of origin. So far we have Neanderthals in Gibraltar going back 100k combined with an Ice Age lowering sea levels and you could have a exodus into what is now the Sahara.

Still we don't know and its important to wait for the research.

I am one to think the Neanderthal of the north is one of a couple subspecies spread throughout the Afro-Eurasian landmass, we don't even know their loci.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

They have yet to figure out for sure what it is; they aren't even positive of the exact Neanderthal range or even point of origin. So far we have Neanderthals in Gibraltar going back 100k combined with an Ice Age lowering sea levels and you could have a exodus into what is now the Sahara.

Still we don't know and its important to what for the research.

I am one to think the Neanderthal of the north is one of a couple subspecies spread throughout the Afro-Eurasian landmass, we don't even know their loci.

The actual genes are different from northern neanderthals, though. The africans have those genes as well, but it's not where they got them and they get more and more rare the more SW you go.

Rhodiensiensis might have been distantly related to neanderthals but probably going back a very long way. It could be something else, but there's nothing else we have any fossil evidence of and area is too small and well connected for a bunch of totally unrelated hominids to be roaming around.

[SkyBurn]

It's basically an immune overresponse. It can be cured by using pinworms. So probably it is not a negative thing except in todays society, possibly it has other genes to go along with it and regulate it which some people don't have.

Crohn's can't be cured. It's a pretty nasty disease.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Crohn's can't be cured. It's a pretty nasty disease.

Well, treated.

[KidMulat]

The actual genes are different from northern neanderthals, though. The africans have those genes as well, but it's not where they got them and they get more and more rare the more SW you go.

Rhodiensiensis might have been distantly related to neanderthals but probably going back a very long way. It could be something else, but there's nothing else we have any fossil evidence of and area is too small and well connected for a bunch of totally unrelated hominids to be roaming around.

There has been an absolute dirth of archeology in Africa; the heart of the Sahara has gotten nothing, the Congo/Rainforest region won't have much usable dna or remains and the Eastern Sky Islands outside of a few digs in the Rifts have been left relatively untouched.

I still don't believe its Rhodiensiensis, I would question the fertility of such a crossing. if anything I would think the resulting offspring (if they could even happen) would be essentially mules.

One could also interpret the SW rarity being earlier humans who left prior to mixing with a founder group making up remaining humans intermixing with the archiac population later branching out.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

There has been an absolute dirth of archeology in Africa; the heart of the Sahara has gotten nothing, the Congo/Rainforest region won't have much usable dna or remains and the Eastern Sky Islands outside of a few digs in the Rifts have been left relatively untouched.

I still don't believe its Rhodiensiensis, I would question the fertility of such a crossing. if anything I would think the resulting offspring (if they could even happen) would be essentially mules.

One could also interpret the SW rarity being earlier humans who left prior to mixing with a founder group making up remaining humans intermixing with the archiac population later branching out.

Africa has probably had about as much archaeology performed in it as the rest of the world put together. Especially south africa and NE africa where conditions are good for finding stuff.

There's been a lot of finds in the sahara as well, but obviously the sand dune portions are totally worthless for finding anything but stone tools (though they find an awful lot), and the jungle areas are not much better. Evolving in jungle area makes no sense anyway though because usually it leads to small brain and muscle mass due to heat and lack of resources.

Rhodiensiensis is usually believed to be what modern humans evolve out of. So I don't see any scenario where all these hold up together. Either we evolved from rhodiensiensis and somehow moved out of africa without getting any of this species mixed in, or else we evolved from neither of these species and missed both of them completely. Or else out of africa is bunk. Because none of these genes made it out of africa, they are limited to only some pygmy populations.

To me this is one of most damning evidences against out of africa. Africa is big but evolving wholly in east africa makes no sense, and if it was sub sahara africa then the dilemna above kind of blows it out of the water. And in north africa we have lots of evidence of people coming from europe into it, none the other way around though.

[KidMulat]

Africa has probably had about as much archaeology performed in it as the rest of the world put together. Especially south africa and NE africa where conditions are good for finding stuff.

There's been a lot of finds in the sahara as well, but obviously the sand dune portions are totally worthless for finding anything but stone tools (though they find an awful lot), and the jungle areas are not much better. Evolving in jungle area makes no sense anyway though because usually it leads to small brain and muscle mass due to heat and lack of resources.

Rhodiensiensis is usually believed to be what modern humans evolve out of. So I don't see any scenario where all these hold up together. Either we evolved from rhodiensiensis and somehow moved out of africa without getting any of this species mixed in, or else we evolved from neither of these species and missed both of them completely. Or else out of africa is bunk. Because none of these genes made it out of africa, they are limited to only some pygmy populations.

To me this is one of most damning evidences against out of africa. Africa is big but evolving wholly in east africa makes no sense, and if it was sub sahara africa then the dilemna above kind of blows it out of the water. And in north africa we have lots of evidence of people coming from europe into it, none the other way around though.

They have only done complete genetic work on percieved genetically ancient people's. The fallacy in this is that hunter gathering groups today are merely the remnants of larger groups who've assimilated into the surrounding communities or in the case of the Pygmies contrary to most peoples beliefs are the result of symbiotic relationships between hunters and forest people that traded with farmers/Sahelians for what looks like thousands of years.

It is incorrect to state it exists only in Pygmies because so few groups have been tested and because its known that all Pygmies are mixed and all Bantu are mixed and have been for some 40,000k years. They existed in the forests periphery, the forest itself is a desert because so little calorically dense foods can be found in year round abundance much like a rainy season in the Kalahari; sustenance is ephemeral.

What you basically have then are three zones again in the Mountainous regions of East Africa (being that they are so high up in the Equatorial regions they have the most stable climate and have some of the most anachronistic plant and animal life) the Drakensberg, the Three Rifts/Eastern Highlands and the Ethio-Arabian Highlands.

We can count out the Sahara as its been going through Pumps of extreme drought and moderate rains for thousands of years (that is unless such an environment forced some sort of expansive and adaptive quality that helped create modern humans) .

Most of Africa isn't really advantageous for people, most of the plant life isn't useful for any mammal that can't eat grass and leaves, you can't rely on animal protein because the herbivores have had to survive a vast array of predators for millennia and save for the latest wet Saharan period that created a dependancy of wild tended stands of rice, sorghum, millet, cowpeas, ensete like plants etc... and the ensuing drought that created intensified growing in what is now the Sahel; the only places with stable long term climates/calorically dense foods are those few regions in East Africa.

Also I feel iffy about your statement regarding African Archaeology; I feel as though focusing mainly on South Africa, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia and Eritrea and some of the northern regions of the Maghreb (also the Aïr mountains) isn't enough to have even a half way decent picture of Hominid evolution.

[Neanderthal]

I think Neanderthals probably nuked Africa with Atlantean technology but some Homo Sapiens faggots managed to escape and had much more faggy, gracile, skinny, bitchy looking children and eventually when they were a bunch gained the war against Neanderthal. Sad.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

They have only done complete genetic work on percieved genetically ancient people's. The fallacy in this is that hunter gathering groups today are merely the remnants of larger groups who've assimilated into the surrounding communities or in the case of the Pygmies contrary to most peoples beliefs are the result of symbiotic relationships between hunters and forest people that traded with farmers/Sahelians for what looks like thousands of years.

It is incorrect to state it exists only in Pygmies because so few groups have been tested and because its known that all Pygmies are mixed and all Bantu are mixed and have been for some 40,000k years. They existed in the forests periphery, the forest itself is a desert because so little calorically dense foods can be found in year round abundance much like a rainy season in the Kalahari; sustenance is ephemeral.


Human genome project scanned lots of random people, trying to get representative sample. There can be other weird stuff floating around but same can be said of everything because it still costs quite a bit to sequence someone.

So it could be in other groups, but it doesn't pervade other groups the way it does in pygmies. If it had been some really ancient mixture followed by out of africa event then you'd expect everyone on earth to have it. They do in eurasia with neanderthals so these two concepts go against each other.




What you basically have then are three zones again in the Mountainous regions of East Africa (being that they are so high up in the Equatorial regions they have the most stable climate and have some of the most anachronistic plant and animal life) the Drakensberg, the Three Rifts/Eastern Highlands and the Ethio-Arabian Highlands.

We can count out the Sahara as its been going through Pumps of extreme drought and moderate rains for thousands of years (that is unless such an environment forced some sort of expansive and adaptive quality that helped create modern humans) .

Most of Africa isn't really advantageous for people, most of the plant life isn't useful for any mammal that can't eat grass and leaves, you can't rely on animal protein because the herbivores have had to survive a vast array of predators for millennia and save for the latest wet Saharan period that created a dependancy of wild tended stands of rice, sorghum, millet, cowpeas, ensete like plants etc... and the ensuing drought that created intensified growing in what is now the Sahel; the only places with stable long term climates/calorically dense foods are those few regions in East Africa.

Also I feel iffy about your statement regarding African Archaeology; I feel as though focusing mainly on South Africa, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia and Eritrea and some of the northern regions of the Maghreb (also the Aïr mountains) isn't enough to have even a half way decent picture of Hominid evolution.

It's all relative. The places that seem likely to have anything interesting have been covered more than anything else. Europe is lucky in that it has a lot of caves and a lot of construction that turns up lucky finds, but caves are not easy to find which is why they still find new areas regularly.

The really underexplored places are middle east and rest of eurasia. A lot of stuff found recently in india and middle east has been simply never explored before yet they found hundreds of sites, like new lithic site every mile, all over middle east and india.

China is treasure trove of human and dinosaur fossils but it has never bothered to harvest them until very recently. The little archaeology done til now has been by germans and americans.

[Alessio]

''2-4% genes from them is not much''

I think it's a lot!


The BBC title is a bit misleading/sensationalist. As you can see from the article, we got both positives and negatives from Neanderthals.

2-4% genes from them is not much. But certain things seem to be strong/dominant. I think red hair and freckles are among them. I even see English/black mixes in the UK who have freckles sometimes, and reddish hair.

[Alessio]

I think that the smoking gene doesn't really excist and is just made up by some pseudo scientist.


so how come sub-Saharan Africans have diabetes and addiction to smoking too? not at a rate that dramatically different from anyone else?

[Alessio]

Yeah and their favorite stuff to smoke is crack, isn't there a Crack gene too ? :p


They do?

[Alessio]

Yes but less right ?


Africans have Neanderthal DNA

[Alessio]

Wach out with those tests before you get labeled with oppositional defiant disorder” or ODD. Defined as an “ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior,” symptoms include questioning authority, negativity, defiance, argumentativeness, and being easily annoyed.
It's in DSM-IV, so if you're a non-conformist you'll have to be sick as fuck ! lol


I usually score as depressive on any tests but I function a lot better than 99% of the population so maybe it's the people who constantly smile and hobnob with random people who are mentally ill. I have friends that would take a bullet for me, I doubt many of these social butterfly types can honestly say that.

[KidMulat]

Human genome project scanned lots of random people, trying to get representative sample. There can be other weird stuff floating around but same can be said of everything because it still costs quite a bit to sequence someone.

So it could be in other groups, but it doesn't pervade other groups the way it does in pygmies. If it had been some really ancient mixture followed by out of africa event then you'd expect everyone on earth to have it. They do in eurasia with neanderthals so these two concepts go against each other.



It's all relative. The places that seem likely to have anything interesting have been covered more than anything else. Europe is lucky in that it has a lot of caves and a lot of construction that turns up lucky finds, but caves are not easy to find which is why they still find new areas regularly.

The really underexplored places are middle east and rest of eurasia. A lot of stuff found recently in india and middle east has been simply never explored before yet they found hundreds of sites, like new lithic site every mile, all over middle east and india.

China is treasure trove of human and dinosaur fossils but it has never bothered to harvest them until very recently. The little archaeology done til now has been by germans and americans.

I don't think all the "interesting" places have been dug yet they skipped over the region between Southern Africa and Ethiopia which is crucial

It seems the current tests aren't accurately articulating the data of African genetics; they just discovered archaic ancestry in Africans when it was assumed for some time they didn't, who knows what else will be found with some fine tuning.

[KidMulat]

Yes but less right ?

Yes and also from a "Neanderthal Cousin".