Web edition: July 31, 2012
Print edition: September 8, 2012; Vol.182 #5 (p. 9)
Expeditions to Africa may have brought back evidence of a hitherto unknown branch in the human family tree. But this time the evidence wasn’t unearthed by digging in the dirt. It was found in the DNA of hunter-gatherer people living in Cameroon and Tanzania.
Buried in the genetic blueprints of 15 people, researchers found the genetic signature of a sister species that branched off the human family tree at about the same time that Neandertals did. This lineage probably remained isolated from the one that produced modern humans for a long time, but its DNA jumped into the Homo sapiens gene pool through interbreeding with modern humans during the same era that other modern humans and Neandertals were mixing in the Middle East, researchers report in the August 3 Cell.
The evidence for ancient interbreeding is surprisingly convincing, says Richard “Ed” Green, a genome biologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz. “There is a signal that demands explanation, and archaic admixture seems to be the most reasonable one at this point,” he says.
Scientists have discovered that some people with ancestry outside Africa have DNA inherited from Neandertals or Denisovans, a mysterious group known only through DNA derived from a fossil finger bone found in a Siberian cave (SN: 6/5/10, p. 5; SN: 1/15/11, p.10).
But those researchers had DNA from fossils to guide their research. This time, researchers led by Sarah Tishkoff at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia didn’t have fossil DNA, or even fossils.
Tishkoff’s group took DNA donated by 15 African hunter-gatherers — five Pygmies from Cameroon and five Hadza and five Sandawe from Tanzania— and compiled complete genetic blueprints for each person. Population geneticist Joshua Akey of the University of Washington and his colleagues helped analyze the data. Using a statistical analysis, the team determined that about 2 percent of the DNA from the hunter-gatherers came from an unknown species of hominid that split from modern human ancestors about 1.1 million years ago. These long-lost human cousins must have then interbred with modern humans sometime before the common ancestral lineage of the three hunter-gatherer groups separated about 30,000 to 70,000 years ago, Akey says.
A separate study posted online July 23 on arXiv.org examined patterns of single DNA unit changes, known as SNPs, in 22 African groups. That study, by Joseph Pickrell of Harvard Medical School and colleagues, also presents evidence that some African groups, including the Hadza, may harbor DNA from unknown extinct hominids.
Other researchers aren’t convinced that the DNA remnants identified are the genetic remains of a new species of human cousin. The DNA could have come from a genetically distinct group of modern humans that has since died out due to changes in their environment, diseases or confrontations with rival groups of humans, says Jean-Jacques Hublin, a paleoanthropologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.
Relatively recent interbreeding isn’t the only explanation for the presence of this newly discovered DNA, says anthropological geneticist Paul Verdu of Stanford University. He thinks the DNA may be the genetic stamp left by a common ancestor of modern humans and another species. The DNA may have morphed so much in non-African groups, just by chance, that it is now unrecognizable.
Citations
J. Lachance et al. Evolutionary history and adaptation from high-coverage whole-genome sequences of diverse African hunter-gatherers. Cell, Vol 150, August 3, 2012, p. 1. [Go to]. [Go to]
J.K. Pickrell et al. The genetic prehistory of southern Africa. arXiv:1207.5552v1. [Go to]
Suggested Reading
T. Hesman Saey. Neandertal genome yields evidence of interbreeding with humans. Science News Vol. 177, June 5, 2010, p. 5. Available online: [Go to]
L. Sanders. Neandertal relative bred with humans. Science News Vol. 179, January 15, 2011, p. 10. Available online: [Go to]
Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.
I realize that this isn't politically correct and I'm not trying to provoke anyone. But the evidence seems to be suggesting that geographic and racial differences are real could be deep seated. The prevailing wisdom that racial differences are just skin deep might be wrong. (I'd better duck!)
I never liked the definition of species as simply not interbreeding. I prefer can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring. By the geographic isolation or choice causing no interbreeding making two populations different species, Native Americans were a different species from Europeans and Australian Aborigines were a separate species from both groups. Try telling people that is sciences view and see how everyone reacts.
If two individuals reproduce and the result is a fertile offspring (necessary for the resultant genes to be passed on to future generations) they are the same species by definition. These fossils that look different but in fact interbred simply show genetic diversity among tribes within the Homo Sapien species. As climate changed certain things selected for that made for these differences were no longer an advantage and became simple background noise within the whole species rather than a regional advantage.
If a Neanderthal were to walk down the street today he would blend in within the genetic diversity of the people today. He wouldn't look typical but he also wouldn't be out of the range of human traits today.
@ Daniel:
Who says it hasn't left traces? For signal reasons, they looked only at the 3 early isolated hunter-gatherer groups.
On the other hand, the found population structure suggest longtime isolation in Africa. The archaic population, unless it hadn't migrated to Asia and back, was isolated for a long time. This were also the case for the 3 HG groups.
@ Marty:
This has nothing to do with multi-regionalism, since the resulting introgressions aren't large or alone responsible for a new species and its survival - they differ in different areas. It is a good test for out-of-Africa however.
Also, erectus introgression in asians? Not observed AFAIK.
@ John:
No DNA has been recovered from H. floresiensis.
@ Theo:
As I understand it the definitions of Homo species vs subspecies is up in the air. Due to longterm geographic isolation, these introgressions are likely not enough to be considered breaking down the species/subspecies barrier.
Your example of geographic isolation is not, as I understand it. Modern human populations are demes with nice, smooth gradients indicating insufficient isolation vs population sizes. Now we also know at least three cases of migration into America, making "Native Americans" a veritable mix to boot.
You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.