Brief Communication: Quantitative‐ and molecular‐genetic differentiation in humans and chimpanzees: Implications for the evolutionary processes underlying cranial diversification

Estimates of the amount of genetic differentiation in humans among major geographic regions (e.g., Eastern Asia vs. Europe) from quantitative‐genetic analyses of cranial measurements closely match those from classical‐ and molecular‐genetic markers. Typically, among‐region differences account for ～10% of the total variation. This correspondence is generally interpreted as evidence for the importance of neutral evolutionary processes (e.g., genetic drift) in generating among‐region differences in human cranial form, but it was initially surprising because human cranial diversity was frequently assumed to show a strong signature of natural selection. Is the human degree of similarity of cranial and DNA‐sequence estimates of among‐region genetic differentiation unusual? How do comparisons with other taxa illuminate the evolutionary processes underlying cranial diversification? Chimpanzees provide a useful starting point for placing the human results in a broader comparative context, because common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus) are the extant species most closely related to humans. To address these questions, I used 27 cranial measurements collected on a sample of 861 humans and 263 chimpanzees to estimate the amount of genetic differentiation between pairs of groups (between regions for humans and between species or subspecies for chimpanzees). Consistent with previous results, the human cranial estimates are quite similar to published DNA‐sequence estimates. In contrast, the chimpanzee cranial estimates are much smaller than published DNA‐sequence estimates. It appears that cranial differentiation has been limited in chimpanzees relative to humans. Am J Phys Anthropol 154:615–620, 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Visual discrimination of primate species based on faces in chimpanzees

Many primate studies have investigated discrimination of individual faces within the same species. However, few studies have looked at discrimination between primate species faces at the categorical level. This study systematically examined the factors important for visual discrimination between primate species faces in chimpanzees, including: colour, orientation, familiarity, and perceptual similarity. Five adult female chimpanzees were tested on their ability to discriminate identical and categorical (non-identical) images of different primate species faces in a series of touchscreen matching-to-sample experiments. Discrimination performance for chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan faces was better in colour than in greyscale. An inversion effect was also found, with higher accuracy for upright than inverted faces. Discrimination performance for unfamiliar (baboon and capuchin monkey) and highly familiar (chimpanzee and human) but perceptually different species was equally high. After excluding effects of colour and familiarity, difficulty in discriminating between different species faces can be best explained by their perceptual similarity to each other. Categorical discrimination performance for unfamiliar, perceptually similar faces (gorilla and orangutan) was significantly worse than unfamiliar, perceptually different faces (baboon and capuchin monkey). Moreover, multidimensional scaling analysis of the image similarity data based on local feature matching revealed greater similarity between chimpanzee, gorilla and orangutan faces than between human, baboon and capuchin monkey faces. We conclude our chimpanzees appear to perceive similarity in primate faces in a similar way to humans. Information about perceptual similarity is likely prioritized over the potential influence of previous experience or a conceptual representation of species for categorical discrimination between species faces.     

Human and chimpanzee gene expression differences replicated in mice fed different diets

Although the human diet is markedly different from the diets of closely related primate species, the influence of diet on phenotypic and genetic differences between humans and other primates is unknown. In this study, we analyzed gene expression in laboratory mice fed diets typical of humans and of chimpanzees. The effects of human diets were found to be significantly different from that of a chimpanzee diet in the mouse liver, but not in the brain. Importantly, 10% of the genes that differ in their expression between humans and chimpanzee livers differed also between the livers of mice fed the human and chimpanzee diets. Furthermore, both the promoter sequences and the amino acid sequences of these diet-related genes carry more differences between humans and chimpanzees than random genes. Our results suggest that the mouse can be used to study at least some aspects of human-specific traits.     

The chimpanzee cytochrome P450 3A subfamily: Is our closest related species really that similar?

With the release of the chimpanzee genomic database, much work has been accomplished to understand more fully the closest related species to humans. This study investigates the cytochrome P450 3A (CYP3A) subfamily and examines differences which may be expected between chimpanzees and humans in regards to CYP3A metabolism. A previous publication had reported the presence of five putative chimpanzee CYP3A isoforms, as compared to the four in humans (Williams ET et al., Mol Phylogenet Evol 33, 300–8). Based on the previous report, the chimpanzee CYP3A5 should have had a different C-terminus than its human counterpart; therefore, CYP3A5 and CYP3A67 were cloned. The CYP3A5 clone obtained disputes the previous prediction and confirms that the nucleotide similarity between the two species is 99.7%. While CYP3A67 is most closely related to CYP3A7, with significant differences in the amino acid sequences. Also, the mRNA expression of CYP3A67 can rival the expression of CYP3A4 in the tissues analyzed. CYP3A7 was not found to be expressed in any chimpanzee tissue examined. Total CYP3A protein expression was not significantly different between chimpanzees and humans. Metabolism assays using benzphetamine and erythromycin with chimpanzee liver microsomes did not reveal major differences between chimpanzees and humans. In conclusion, adult CYP3A metabolism may not be significantly different between chimpanzees and humans.     

The geographic apportionment of mitochondrial genetic diversity in east African chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii

This study is a geographically systematic genetic survey of the easternmost subspecies of chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii. DNA was noninvasively collected in the form of shed hair from chimpanzees of known origin in Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Zaire. Two hundred sixty-two DNA sequences from hypervariable region 1 of which of the mitochondrial control region were generated. Eastern chimpanzees display levels of mitochondrial genetic variation which are low and which are similar to levels observed in humans (Homo sapiens). Also like humans, between 80% and 90% of the genetic variability within the eastern chimpanzees is apportioned within populations. Spatial autocorrelation analysis shows that genetic similarity between eastern chimpanzees decreases clinically with distance, in a pattern remarkably similar to one seen for humans separated by equivalent geographic distances. Eastern chimpanzee mismatch distributions (frequency distributions of pairwise genetic differences between individuals) are similar in shape to those for humans, implying similar population histories of recent demographic expansion. The overall pattern of genetic variability in eastern chimpanzees is consistent with the hypothesis that the subject has responded demographically to paleoclimatically driven changes in the distribution of eastern African forests during the recent Pleistocene.      

Comparison of chimpanzee and human leukocyte Ig-like receptor genes reveals framework and rapidly evolving genes.

The leukocyte receptor complex (LRC) on human chromosome 19 contains related Ig superfamily killer cell Ig-like receptor (KIR) and leukocyte Ig-like receptor (LIR) genes. Previously, we discovered much difference in the KIR genes between humans and chimpanzees, primate species estimated to have approximately 98.8% genomic sequence similarity. Here, the common chimpanzee LIR genes are identified, characterized, and compared with their human counterparts. From screening a chimpanzee splenocyte cDNA library, clones corresponding to nine different chimpanzee LIRs were isolated and sequenced. Analysis of genomic DNA from 48 unrelated chimpanzees showed 42 to have all nine LIR genes, and six animals to lack just one of the genes. In structural diversity and functional type, the chimpanzee LIRs cover the range of human LIRs. Although both species have the same number of inhibitory LIRs, humans have more activating receptors, a trend also seen for KIRs. Four chimpanzee LIRs are clearly orthologs of human LIRs. Five other chimpanzee LIRs have paralogous relationships with clusters of human LIRs and have undergone much recombination. Like the human genes, chimpanzee LIR genes appear to be organized into two duplicated blocks, each block containing two orthologous genes. This organization provides a conserved framework within which there are clusters of faster evolving genes. Human and chimpanzee KIR genes have an analogous arrangement. Whereas both KIR and LIR genes can exhibit greater interspecies differences than the genome average, within each species the LIR gene family is more conserved than the KIR gene family.     

Fatal Chimpanzee Attack in Loango National Park,Gabon

In some populations, chimpanzees engage in lethal aggression within and between social units. We report a fatal attack on an adult male chimpanzee at a new research site in Loango National Park, Gabon. We found a fresh corpse of an adult male chimpanzee only a few hundred meters from the research camp, after noting numerous vocalizations and chimpanzee movements the previous evening. Previous contacts with chimpanzees and fresh tracks in the area around the corpse suggest that 2 communities of chimpanzees range where the attack occurred and that members of the neighboring community killed the chimpanzee. To support the conclusion, we conducted genetic analysis for 13 Y-chromosome loci and 9 microsatellite loci of fecal samples from the dead individual, 5 possible attackers, and 2 members of the other community Though we cannot exclude the possibility of an intracommunity killing, the combined observational and genetic evidence suggest an intercommunity attack. The case study adds to the growing evidence that intercommunity killings are a rare but widespread phenomenon among chimpanzees and not an artifact of human provisioning or habituation.     

How chimpanzees look at pictures: a comparative eye-tracking study

Surprisingly little is known about the eye movements of chimpanzees, despite the potential contribution of such knowledge to comparative cognition studies. Here, we present the first examination of eye tracking in chimpanzees. We recorded the eye movements of chimpanzees as they viewed naturalistic pictures containing a full-body image of a chimpanzee, a human or another mammal; results were compared with those from humans. We found a striking similarity in viewing patterns between the two species. Both chimpanzees and humans looked at the animal figures for longer than at the background and at the face region for longer than at other parts of the body. The face region was detected at first sight by both species when they were shown pictures of chimpanzees and of humans. However, the eye movements of chimpanzees also exhibited distinct differences from those of humans; the former shifted the fixation location more quickly and more broadly than the latter. In addition, the average duration of fixation on the face region was shorter in chimpanzees than in humans. Overall, our results clearly demonstrate the eye-movement strategies common to the two primate species and also suggest several notable differences manifested during the observation of pictures of scenes and body forms.     

Distinguishing humans from great apes with AluYb8 repeats

Humans and chimpanzees share some 99% of DNA and amino acid identity, yet they exhibit important biomedical, morphological, and cognitive differences, difficult to accommodate within the remaining 1% of sequence diversity. Other types of genetic variation must be responsible for the taxonomic differences. Here we trace the evolution of AluYb8 repeats from a single origin at the roots of higher primates to a large increase in their number in humans. We identify nine AluYb8 DNA repeats in the chimpanzee genome compared to over 2200 repeats in the human, which represents a 250-fold increase in the rate of change in the human lineage and far outweighs the 99% sequence similarity between the two species. It is estimated that the average age of the human Yb8Alus is about 3.3 million years (My); almost 10% of them are identical in sequence, and hence are of recent origin. Genomic variations of this magnitude, distinguishing humans from great apes have not been realized. This explosive Alu expansion must have had a profound effect on the organization of our genome and the architecture of our chromosomes, inferentially altering profiles of gene expression and chromosome choreography in cell division. Additionally, we conclude that this major evolutionary process of Alu proliferation is driven by internal forces, written in the chemistry of DNA, rather than by external selection.     

Epidemiological study of zoonoses derived from humans in captive chimpanzees

Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) in wildlife are major threats both to human health and to biodiversity conservation. An estimated 71.8 % of zoonotic EID events are caused by pathogens in wildlife and the incidence of such diseases is increasing significantly in humans. In addition, human diseases are starting to infect wildlife, especially non-human primates. The chimpanzee is an endangered species that is threatened by human activity such as deforestation, poaching, and human disease transmission. Recently, several respiratory disease outbreaks that are suspected of having been transmitted by humans have been reported in wild chimpanzees. Therefore, we need to study zoonotic pathogens that can threaten captive chimpanzees in primate research institutes. Serological surveillance is one of several methods used to reveal infection history. We examined serum from 14 captive chimpanzees in Japanese primate research institutes for antibodies against 62 human pathogens and 1 chimpanzee-borne infectious disease. Antibodies tested positive against 29 pathogens at high or low prevalence in the chimpanzees. These results suggest that the proportions of human-borne infections may reflect the chimpanzee’s history, management system in the institute, or regional epidemics. Furthermore, captive chimpanzees are highly susceptible to human pathogens, and their induced antibodies reveal not only their history of infection, but also the possibility of protection against human pathogens.     

Preparing chimpanzees for laboratory research

The chimpanzee is the only representative of the Great Apes that is extensively involved in biomedical research in primate laboratories. These apes are used as animal models in a variety of studies, including research on infectious disease, parasitic disease, pharmacokinetic studies, neuroscience, cognition, and behavior. Chimpanzees used in biomedical research in the United States reside largely in six specialized research and holding facilities, and most of the research with them is conducted at these sites. Given the relatively small population of chimpanzees and its importance to biomedical research, it is imperative that we carefully manage the care, production, and use of these animals in biomedical research studies. Selection criteria and preparation techniques are reviewed in this article in an effort to begin a discussion on best practices for choosing and handling chimpanzees participating in biomedical research. The use of routine health assessment information is described for subject selection, as are behavioral issues to be considered. Due to the relatively small number of chimpanzees available, issues related to experimental design and multiple uses of chimpanzees are discussed. Practices related to the transportation and acclimation of chimpanzees are described. Finally, behavioral conditioning procedures are discussed, including habituation, desensitization, and positive reinforcement training that have been applied to reduce animal distress and improve the quality of the science being conducted with chimpanzee subjects.     

Genome of the apes.

The Human Genome Project has generated both the information and technological infrastructure needed to accelerate genetic comparisons between humans and the African great apes (chimpanzees and gorillas). Sequence and chromosomal organization differences between these highly related genomes will provide clues to the genetic basis for recently evolved, specifically human traits such as bipedal gait and advanced cognitive function. Recent studies comparing the primate genomes have the potential to affect many aspects of human biomedical research and could benefit primate conservation efforts.     

A map of the common chimpanzee genome

The completion of the chimpanzee genome will greatly help us determine which genetic changes are unique to humanity. Chimpanzees are our closest living relative, and a recent study has made considerable progress towards decoding the genome of our sister taxon.1 Over 75,000 common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) bacterial artificial chromosome end sequences were aligned and mapped to the human genome. This study shows the remarkable genetic similarity (98.77%) between humans and chimpanzees, while highlighting intriguing areas of potential difference. If we wish to understand the genetic basis of humankind, the completion of the chimpanzee genome deserves high priority.     

Vocal responsiveness in male wild chimpanzees: implications for the evolution of language

Several captive chimpanzees and bonobos have learned to use symbols and to comprehend syntax. Thus, compared with other nonhumans, these animals appear to have unusual cognitive powers that can be recruited for communicative behavior. This raises the possibility that wild chimpanzee vocal communication is more complex than heretofore demonstrated. To examine this possibility, I investigated whether wild chimpanzee vocal exchanges exhibit uniquely human conversational attributes. The results indicate that wild chimpanzees vocalize at low rates, tend not to respond to calls that they hear, and, when they do respond, tend to give calls that are similar to the ones they have heard. Thus, chimpanzee vocal interactions resemble those of other primate species, and show no special similarity to human conversations. The results support the view that we need to explore cognitive and social continuities and discontinuities with nonhuman primates to understand the origin and evolution of language, but also emphasize the need for fine-grained analyses of wild chimpanzee vocal interactions.     

Unconstrained cranial evolution in Neandertals and modern humans compared to common chimpanzees

A variety of lines of evidence support the idea that neutral evolutionary processes (genetic drift, mutation) have been important in generating cranial differences between Neandertals and modern humans. But how do Neandertals and modern humans compare with other species? And how do these comparisons illuminate the evolutionary processes underlying cranial diversification? To address these questions, we used 27 standard cranial measurements collected on 2524 recent modern humans, 20 Neandertals and 237 common chimpanzees to estimate split times between Neandertals and modern humans, and between Pan troglodytes verus and two other subspecies of common chimpanzee. Consistent with a neutral divergence, the Neandertal versus modern human split-time estimates based on cranial measurements are similar to those based on DNA sequences. By contrast, the common chimpanzee cranial estimates are much lower than DNA-sequence estimates. Apparently, cranial evolution has been unconstrained in Neandertals and modern humans compared with common chimpanzees. Based on these and additional analyses, it appears that cranial differentiation in common chimpanzees has been restricted by stabilizing natural selection. Alternatively, this restriction could be due to genetic and/or developmental constraints on the amount of within-group variance (relative to effective population size) available for genetic drift to act on.     

The poor contribution of chimpanzee experiments to biomedical progress

Biomedical research on captive chimpanzees incurs substantial nonhuman animal welfare, ethical, and financial costs that advocates claim resultin substantial advancements in biomedical knowledge. However, demonstrating minimal contribution toward the advancement of biomedical knowledge generally, subsequent papers did not cite 49.5% (47/95), of 95 experiments randomly selected from a population of 749 published worldwide between 1995 and 2004. Only 14.7% (14/95) were cited by 27 papers that abstracts indicated described well-developed methods for combating human diseases. However, detailed examination of these medical papers revealed that in vitrostudies, human clinical and epidemiological studies, molecular assays and methods, and genomic studies contributed most to their development. No chimpanzee study made an essential contribution, or, in most cases, a significant contribution of any kind, to the development of the medical method described. The approval of these experiments indicates a failure of the ethics committee system. The demonstrable lack of benefit of most chimpanzee experimentation and its profound animal welfare and bioethical costs indicate that a ban is warranted in those remaining countries—notably the United States—that continue to conduct it.     

Analysis of chimpanzee history based on genome sequence alignments

Population geneticists often study small numbers of carefully chosen loci, but it has become possible to obtain orders of magnitude for more data from overlaps of genome sequences. Here, we generate tens of millions of base pairs of multiple sequence alignments from combinations of three western chimpanzees, three central chimpanzees, an eastern chimpanzee, a bonobo, a human, an orangutan, and a macaque. Analysis provides a more precise understanding of demographic history than was previously available. We show that bonobos and common chimpanzees were separated ~1,290,000 years ago, western and other common chimpanzees ~510,000 years ago, and eastern and central chimpanzees at least 50,000 years ago. We infer that the central chimpanzee population size increased by at least a factor of 4 since its separation from western chimpanzees, while the western chimpanzee effective population size decreased. Surprisingly, in about one percent of the genome, the genetic relationships between humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos appear to be different from the species relationships. We used PCR-based resequencing to confirm 11 regions where chimpanzees and bonobos are not most closely related. Study of such loci should provide information about the period of time 5–7 million years ago when the ancestors of humans separated from those of the chimpanzees.     

Responses to novel foods in captive chimpanzees

Hesitancy to eat novel foods hampers the immediate enlargement of the diet but serves to limit the risk of ingesting toxic foods. Neophobia has been systematically investigated in only a few primate species, in which it appears to be affected by social influences. Surprisingly, little is known about neophobia in chimpanzees. We studied the response of eight adult captive chimpanzees to 16 foods (foods commonly eaten by humans and never tasted before by chimpanzees). Each novel food was presented twice to the chimpanzee by a familiar or an unfamiliar human. Between the two trials the human ate the food face to face with the chimpanzee (demonstration). Results showed that some foods were almost unanimously accepted, whereas others were not. Moreover, there were marked interindividual differences in food acceptance and consumption; chimpanzees ranged from being almost completely neophobic to accepting almost all foods. Familiarity with the human and the human's demonstration did not affect responses to the foods. The humans' predictions concerning the chimpanzees' acceptance of the different foods were rather good; furthermore, in seven cases out of eight the humans' preferences did not correlate with their predictions on the chimpanzees' preferences. The finding that most captive chimpanzees are initially cautious toward novel foods supports the little information there is regarding this subject in wild chimpanzees. However, the lack of influence of the humans' familiarity and demonstration on the response to food by the chimpanzees calls for more naturalistic studies, in which social influences are provided by group members. Since novel stimuli provide sensory stimulation and elicit exploration and social interest, occasional presentation of novel foods could be a promising and cheap device for feeding enrichment. Zoo Biol 21:539–548, 2002. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Divergent whole-genome methylation maps of human and chimpanzee brains reveal epigenetic basis of human regulatory evolution

DNA methylation is a pervasive epigenetic DNA modification that strongly affects chromatin regulation and gene expression. To date, it remains largely unknown how patterns of DNA methylation differ between closely related species and whether such differences contribute to species-specific phenotypes. To investigate these questions, we generated nucleotide-resolution whole-genome methylation maps of the prefrontal cortex of multiple humans and chimpanzees. Levels and patterns of DNA methylation vary across individuals within species according to the age and the sex of the individuals. We also found extensive species-level divergence in patterns of DNA methylation and that hundreds of genes exhibit significantly lower levels of promoter methylation in the human brain than in the chimpanzee brain. Furthermore, we investigated the functional consequences of methylation differences in humans and chimpanzees by integrating data on gene expression generated with next-generation sequencing methods, and we found a strong relationship between differential methylation and gene expression. Finally, we found that differentially methylated genes are strikingly enriched with loci associated with neurological disorders, psychological disorders, and cancers. Our results demonstrate that differential DNA methylation might be an important molecular mechanism driving gene-expression divergence between human and chimpanzee brains and might potentially contribute to the evolution of disease vulnerabilities. Thus, comparative studies of humans and chimpanzees stand to identify key epigenomic modifications underlying the evolution of human-specific traits.     

An assessment of the use of chimpanzees in hepatitis C research past, present and future: 1. Validity of the chimpanzee model

The USA is the only significant user of chimpanzees in biomedical research in the world, since many countries have banned or limited the practice due to substantial ethical, economic and scientific concerns. Advocates of chimpanzee use cite hepatitis C research as a major reason for its necessity and continuation, in spite of supporting evidence that is scant and often anecdotal. This paper examines the scientific and ethical issues surrounding chimpanzee hepatitis C research, and concludes that claims of the necessity of chimpanzees in historical and future hepatitis C research are exaggerated and unjustifiable, respectively. The chimpanzee model has several major scientific, ethical, economic and practical caveats. It has made a relatively negligible contribution to knowledge of, and tangible progress against, the hepatitis C virus compared to non-chimpanzee research, and must be considered scientifically redundant, given the array of alternative methods of inquiry now available. The continuation of chimpanzee use in hepatitis C research adversely affects scientific progress, as well as chimpanzees and humans in need of treatment. Unfounded claims of its necessity should not discourage changes in public policy regarding the use of chimpanzees in US laboratories.