Selection and Reduced Population Size Cannot Explain Higher Amounts of Neandertal Ancestry in East Asian than in European Human Populations

It has been hypothesized that the greater proportion of Neandertal ancestry in East Asians than in Europeans is due to the fact that purifying selection is less effective at removing weakly deleterious Neandertal alleles from East Asian populations. Using simulations of a broad range of models of selection and demography, we have shown that this hypothesis cannot account for the higher proportion of Neandertal ancestry in East Asians than in Europeans. Instead, more complex demographic scenarios, most likely involving multiple pulses of Neandertal admixture, are required to explain the data.     

No evidence of Neandertal admixture in the mitochondrial genomes of early European modern humans and contemporary Europeans

Neandertals, the archaic human form documented in Eurasia until 29,000 years ago, share no mitochondrial haplotype with modern Europeans. Whether this means that the two groups were reproductively isolated is controversial, and indeed nuclear data have been interpreted as suggesting that they admixed. We explored the range of demographic parameters that may have generated the observed mitochondrial diversity, simulating 3.0 million genealogies under six models differing as for the relationships among contemporary Europeans, Neandertals, and Upper Palaeolithic European early modern humans (EEMH), who coexisted with Neandertals for millennia. We compared by Approximate Bayesian Computations the simulation results with mitochondrial diversity in 7 Neandertals, 3 EEMH, and 150 opportunely chosen modern Europeans. A model of genealogical continuity between EEMH and contemporary Europeans, with no Neandertal contribution, received overwhelming support from the analyses. The maximum degree of Neandertal admixture, under the model of gene flow supported by nuclear data, was estimated at 1.5%, but this model proved 20-32 times less likely than a model without any gene flow. Nuclear and mitochondrial evidence might be reconciled if smaller population sizes led to faster lineage sorting for mitochondrial DNA, and Neandertals shared a longer period of common ancestry with the non-African's than with the African's ancestors.     

An Extended Admixture Pulse Model Reveals the Limitations to Human–Neandertal Introgression Dating

Neandertal DNA makes up 2–3% of the genomes of all non-African individuals. The patterns of Neandertal ancestry in modern humans have been used to estimate that this is the result of gene flow that occurred during the expansion of modern humans into Eurasia, but the precise dates of this event remain largely unknown. Here, we introduce an extended admixture pulse model that allows joint estimation of the timing and duration of gene flow. This model leads to simple expressions for both the admixture segment distribution and the decay curve of ancestry linkage disequilibrium, and we show that these two statistics are closely related. In simulations, we find that estimates of the mean time of admixture are largely robust to details in gene flow models, but that the duration of the gene flow can only be recovered if gene flow is very recent and the exact recombination map is known. These results imply that gene flow from Neandertals into modern humans could have happened over hundreds of generations. Ancient genomes from the time around the admixture event are thus likely required to resolve the question when, where, and for how long humans and Neandertals interacted.     

North African Populations Carry the Signature of Admixture with Neandertals

One of the main findings derived from the analysis of the Neandertal genome was the evidence for admixture between Neandertals and non-African modern humans. An alternative scenario is that the ancestral population of non-Africans was closer to Neandertals than to Africans because of ancient population substructure. Thus, the study of North African populations is crucial for testing both hypotheses. We analyzed a total of 780,000 SNPs in 125 individuals representing seven different North African locations and searched for their ancestral/derived state in comparison to different human populations and Neandertals. We found that North African populations have a significant excess of derived alleles shared with Neandertals, when compared to sub-Saharan Africans. This excess is similar to that found in non-African humans, a fact that can be interpreted as a sign of Neandertal admixture. Furthermore, the Neandertal''s genetic signal is higher in populations with a local, pre-Neolithic North African ancestry. Therefore, the detected ancient admixture is not due to recent Near Eastern or European migrations. Sub-Saharan populations are the only ones not affected by the admixture event with Neandertals.     

Comparing models on the genealogical relationships among Neandertal, Cro-Magnoid and modern Europeans by serial coalescent simulations

Populations of anatomically archaic (Neandertal) and early modern (Cro-Magnoid) humans are jointly documented in the European fossil record, in the period between 40 000 and 25 000 years BP, but the large differences between their cultures, morphologies and DNAs suggest that the two groups were not close relatives. However, it is still unclear whether any genealogical continuity between them can be ruled out. Here, we simulated a broad range of demographic scenarios by means of a serial coalescence algorithm in which Neandertals, Cro-Magnoids and modern Europeans were either part of the same mitochondrial genealogy or of two separate genealogies. Mutation rates, population sizes, population structure and demographic growth rates varied across simulations. All models in which anatomically modern (that is, Cro-Magnoid and current) Europeans belong to a distinct genealogy performed better than any model in which the three groups were assigned to the same mitochondrial genealogy. The maximum admissible level of gene flow between Neandertals and the ancestors of current Europeans is 0.001% per generation, one order of magnitude lower than estimated in previous studies not considering genetic data on Cro-Magnoid people.     

Is human longevity a consequence of cultural change or modern biology?

Increased longevity, expressed as the number of individuals surviving to older adulthood, represents a key way that Upper Paleolithic Europeans differ from earlier European (Neandertal) populations. Here, we address whether longevity increased as a result of cultural/adaptive change in Upper Paleolithic Europe, or whether it was introduced to Europe as a part of modern human biology. We compare the ratio of older to younger adults (OY ratio) in an early modern human sample associated with the Middle Paleolithic from Western Asia with OY ratios of European Upper Paleolithic moderns and penecontemporary Neandertals from the same region. We also compare these Neandertals to European Neandertals. The difference between the OY ratios of modern humans of the Middle and Upper Paleolithic is large and significant, but there is no significant difference between the Neandertals and early modern humans of Western Asia. Longevity for the West Asian Neandertals is significantly more common than for the European Neandertals. We conclude that the increase in adult survivorship associated with the Upper Paleolithic is not a biological attribute of modern humans, but reflects important cultural adaptations promoting the demographic and material representations of modernity.     

Absence of regional affinities of Neandertal DNA with living humans does not reject multiregional evolution

The recent extraction of mitochondrial DNA sequences from three European Neandertal fossils has led many to the conclusion that ancient DNA analysis supports the African replacement model of modern human origins and rejects models of multiregional evolution that propose some Neandertal ancestry in living humans. This conclusion is based, in part, on the lack of regional affinity of Neandertal DNA to that from living Europeans. Consideration of migration matrix models shows that this conclusion is premature, since under a model of interregional gene flow we expect to see similar levels of Neandertal ancestry in all contemporary regions, and living Europeans should not necessarily show closer affinity. The absence of regional affinity in Neandertal DNA does not distinguish between replacement and multiregional models.     

The Date of Interbreeding between Neandertals and Modern Humans

Comparisons of DNA sequences between Neandertals and present-day humans have shown that Neandertals share more genetic variants with non-Africans than with Africans. This could be due to interbreeding between Neandertals and modern humans when the two groups met subsequent to the emergence of modern humans outside Africa. However, it could also be due to population structure that antedates the origin of Neandertal ancestors in Africa. We measure the extent of linkage disequilibrium (LD) in the genomes of present-day Europeans and find that the last gene flow from Neandertals (or their relatives) into Europeans likely occurred 37,000–86,000 years before the present (BP), and most likely 47,000–65,000 years ago. This supports the recent interbreeding hypothesis and suggests that interbreeding may have occurred when modern humans carrying Upper Paleolithic technologies encountered Neandertals as they expanded out of Africa.     

Searching for signatures of cold adaptations in modern and archaic humans: hints from the brown adipose tissue genes

Adaptation to low temperatures has been reasonably developed in the human species during the colonization of the Eurasian landmass subsequent to Out of Africa migrations of anatomically modern humans. In addition to morphological and cultural changes, also metabolic ones are supposed to have favored human isolation from cold and body heat production and this can be hypothesized also for most Neandertal and at least for some Denisovan populations, which lived in geographical areas that strongly experienced the last glacial period. Modulation of non-shivering thermogenesis, for which adipocytes belonging to the brown adipose tissue are the most specialized cells, might have driven these metabolic adaptations. To perform an exploratory analysis aimed at looking into this hypothesis, variation at 28 genes involved in such functional pathway was investigated in modern populations from different climate zones, as well as in Neandertal and Denisovan genomes. Patterns of variation at the LEPR gene, strongly related to increased heat dissipation by mitochondria, appeared to have been shaped by positive selection in modern East Asians, but not in Europeans. Moreover, a single potentially cold-adapted LEPR allele, different from the supposed adaptive one identified in Homo sapiens, was found also in Neandertal and Denisovan genomes. These findings suggest that independent mechanisms for cold adaptations might have been developed in different non-African human groups, as well as that the evolution of possible enhanced thermal efficiency in Neandertals and in some Denisovan populations has plausibly entailed significant changes also in other functional pathways than in the examined one.     

No evidence of Neandertal mtDNA contribution to early modern humans

The retrieval of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from four Neandertal fossils from Germany, Russia, and Croatia has demonstrated that these individuals carried closely related mtDNAs that are not found among current humans. However, these results do not definitively resolve the question of a possible Neandertal contribution to the gene pool of modern humans since such a contribution might have been erased by genetic drift or by the continuous influx of modern human DNA into the Neandertal gene pool. A further concern is that if some Neandertals carried mtDNA sequences similar to contemporaneous humans, such sequences may be erroneously regarded as modern contaminations when retrieved from fossils. Here we address these issues by the analysis of 24 Neandertal and 40 early modern human remains. The biomolecular preservation of four Neandertals and of five early modern humans was good enough to suggest the preservation of DNA. All four Neandertals yielded mtDNA sequences similar to those previously determined from Neandertal individuals, whereas none of the five early modern humans contained such mtDNA sequences. In combination with current mtDNA data, this excludes any large genetic contribution by Neandertals to early modern humans, but does not rule out the possibility of a smaller contribution.     

Did the lateral enamel of Neandertal anterior teeth grow differently from that of modern humans?

The formation of lateral enamel in Neandertal anterior teeth has been the subject of recent studies. When compared to the anterior teeth of modern humans from diverse regions (Point Hope, Alaska; Newcastle upon Tyne, England; southern Africa), Neandertal anterior teeth appear to fall within the modern human range of variation for lateral enamel formation time. However, the lateral enamel growth curves of Neandertals are more linear than those of these modern human samples. Other researchers have found that the lateral enamel growth curves of Neandertals are more linear than those of Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic modern humans as well. The statistical significance of this apparent difference between Neandertal and modern human lateral enamel growth curves is analyzed here. The more linear Neandertal enamel growth curves result from the smaller percentage of total perikymata located in the cervical halves of their teeth. The percentage of total perikymata in the cervical halves of teeth is therefore compared between the Neandertal sample (n=56 teeth) and each modern human population sample: Inuit (n=65 teeth), southern African (n=114 teeth), and northern European (n=115 teeth). There are 18 such comparisons (6 tooth types, Neandertals vs. each of the three modern human populations). Eighteen additional comparisons are made among the modern human population samples. Statistically significant differences are found for 16 of the 18 Neandertal vs. modern human comparisons but for only two of the 18 modern human comparisons. Statistical analyses repeated for subsamples of less worn teeth show a similar pattern. Because surface curvature is thought to affect perikymata spacing, we also conducted measurements to assess surface curvature in thirty teeth. Our analysis shows that surface curvature is not a factor in this lateral enamel growth difference between Neandertals and modern humans.     

Ancient DNA: would the real Neandertal please stand up?

Mitochondrial DNA sequences recovered from eight Neandertal specimens cannot be detected in either early fossil Europeans or in modern populations. This indicates that, if Neandertals made any genetic contribution at all to modern humans, it must have been limited, though the extent of the contribution cannot be resolved at present.     

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.     

Were neandertal and modern human cranial differences produced by natural selection or genetic drift?

Most evolutionary explanations for cranial differences between Neandertals and modern humans emphasize adaptation by natural selection. Features of the crania of Neandertals could be adaptations to the glacial climate of Pleistocene Europe or to the high mechanical strains produced by habitually using the front teeth as tools, while those of modern humans could be adaptations for articulate speech production. A few researchers have proposed non-adaptive explanations. These stress that isolation between Neandertal and modern human populations would have lead to cranial diversification by genetic drift (chance changes in the frequencies of alleles at genetic loci contributing to variation in cranial morphology). Here we use a variety of statistical tests founded on explicit predictions from quantitative- and population-genetic theory to show that genetic drift can explain cranial differences between Neandertals and modern humans. These tests are based on thirty-seven standard cranial measurements from a sample of 2524 modern humans from 30 populations and 20 Neandertal fossils. As a further test, we compare our results for modern human cranial measurements with those for a genetic dataset consisting of 377 microsatellites typed for a sample of 1056 modern humans from 52 populations. We conclude that rather than requiring special adaptive accounts, Neandertal and modern human crania may simply represent two outcomes from a vast space of random evolutionary possibilities.     

Late archaic and modern Homo sapiens from Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia: Craniometric comparisons and phylogenetic implications

The craniometric affinities among Neandertals. Upper Palcolithic Europeans, early anatomically modern Southwest Asians, and archaic and modern Africans are investigated using univariate and multivariate methods. For the first time, it is possible to analyse the North African finds Dar-es-Soltane 5, Nazlet Khater, and Wadi Kubbaniya. It was not possible to include the Neandertals from Central Europe due to their poor state of preservation. The results point to, first, a basic distinction between Neandertals on the one hand and modern humans from all geographic regions on the other, and, secondly, to great similarities between modern African and European populations. Late archaic sapiens specimens from Africa were more similar to Upper Paleolithic Europeans than were the Neandertals. The results do not support the hypothesis that a regional evolution giving rise to modern humans took place in Europe. The results are, however, consistent with the hypothesis that modern populations originated in Africa and spread to Europe from there.     

Brief communication: paleoanthropology and the population genetics of ancient genes

The Mezmaiskaya cave mtDNA is similar in many ways to the Feldhofer cave Neandertal sequence and the more recently obtained Vindija cave sequence. If we accept the contention that the Mezmaiskaya cave specimen is a Neandertal infant, its mtDNA provides no new information about the fate of the European Neandertals. However, there is reason to believe that the Mezmaiskaya cave infant is not a Neandertal, and this places its importance in another light, because it delimits the possible hypotheses of Neandertal and recent human genetic relationships. One possibility is a that the pattern found in ancient mtDNA results from the replacement of an isolated gene pool (Neandertals) by one of its contemporaries (modern humans). A second possibility is natural selection expressed as the substitution of an advantageous mtDNA variant within a single large species, including both Neandertals and modern humans. The geologic, archaeological, and dating evidence shows the Mezmaiskaya cave infant to be a burial from a level even more recent than the Upper Paleolithic preserved at the site, and its anatomy does not contradict the assessment that the Mezmaiskaya cave infant is not a Neandertal. Therefore, the second pattern can be favored over the first.     

Extensive ethnolinguistic diversity at the crossroads of North China and South Siberia reflects multiple sources of genetic diversity

North China and South Siberia, populated by Altaic- and Sino-Tibetan-speaking populations, possess extensive ethnolinguistic diversity and serve as the crossroads for the initial peopling of America and western–eastern transcontinental communication. However, the population genetic structure and admixture history of northern East Asians remain poorly understood due to a lack of genome-wide data, especially for Mongolic-speaking people in China. We genotyped genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms for 510 individuals from 38 Mongolic, Tungusic, and Sinitic-speaking populations. We first explored the shared alleles and haplotypes within the studied groups. We then merged with 3508 published modern and ancient Eurasian individuals to reconstruct the deep evolutionary and natural selection history of northern East Asians. We identified genetic substructures within Altaic-speaking populations: Western Turkic people harbored more western Eurasian-related ancestry; Northern Mongolic people in Siberia and eastern Tungusic people in Amur River Basin (ARB) possessed a majority of Neolithic ARB related ancestry; Southern Mongolic people in China possessed apparent genetic influence from Neolithic Yellow River Basin (YRB) farmers. Additionally, we found the differentiated admixture history between western and eastern Mongolians and geographically close Northeast Hans: the former received a genetic impact from western Eurasians, and the latter retained the primary Neolithic YRB and ARB ancestry. Moreover, we demonstrated that Kalmyk people from the northern Caucasus Mountains possessed a strong genetic affinity with Neolithic Mongolian Plateau (MP) people, supporting the hypothesis of their eastern Eurasian origin and long-distance migration history. We also illuminated that historical pastoral empires in the MP contributed considerably to the gene pool of northern Mongolic people but rarely to the southern ones. We finally found natural selection signatures in Mongolians associated with alcohol metabolism. Our results demonstrated that the Neolithic ancestral sources from the MP or ARB played an important role in spreading Altaic populations and languages. The observed multisources of genetic diversity contributed significantly to the extensive ethnolinguistic diversity in northern East Asia.     

Northern gene flow into southeastern East Asians inferred from genome-wide array genotyping

The population history of Southeast (SE) China remains poorly understood due to the sparse sampling of present-day populations and limited modeling with ancient genomic data. We report genome-wide genotyping data from 207 present-day Han Chinese and Hmong-Mien (HM)-speaking She people from Fujian and Taiwan Island, SE China. We coanalyzed 66 Early Neolithic to Iron Age ancient Fujian and Taiwan Island individuals obtained from previously published works to explore the genetic continuity and admixture based on patterns of genetic variations of the high-resolution time transect. We found the genetic differentiation between northern and southern East Asians was defined by a north–south East Asian genetic cline and our studied southern East Asians were clustered in the southern end of this cline. The southeastern coastal modern East Asians are genetically similar to other southern indigenous groups as well as geographically close to Neolithic-to-Iron Age populations, but they also shared excess alleles with post-Neolithic Yellow River ancients, which suggested a southward gene flow on the modern southern coastal gene pool. In addition, we identified one new HM genetic cline in East Asia with the coastal Fujian HM-speaking She localizing at the intersection between HM and Han clines. She people show stronger genetic affinity with southern East Asian indigenous populations, with the main ancestry deriving from groups related to southeastern ancient indigenous rice farmers. The southeastern Han Chinese could be modeled with the primary ancestry deriving from the group related to the Yellow River Basin millet farmers and the remaining from groups related to rice farmers, which was consistent with the northern China origin of modern southeastern Han Chinese and in line with the historically and archaeologically attested southward migrations of Han people and their ancestors. Our estimated north–south admixture time ranges based on the decay of the linkage disequilibrium spanned from the Bronze Age to historic periods, suggesting the recent large-scale population migrations and subsequent admixture participated in the formation of modern Han in SE Asia.