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.     

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.     

Comments on Soltysiak's paper: “Comment: Low dental caries rate in Neandertals: The result of diet or the oral flora compositions?”

A low frequency of dental caries in Neandertal population is still puzzling. Many authors stress that the lower frequency of dental caries was related to a meat diet. However, a recent publication in HOMO – Journal Comparative Human Biology presented a new interpretation of dental caries in Neandertals. In this article, Soltysiak supports the thesis that the lower frequency of caries in the Neandertal population from the Near East could not be related to the low-sugar diet, but rather to the absence of cariogenic bacteria species (S. mutans). Although this hypothesis is interesting, I suspect it to be based on several erroneous assumptions, and a misunderstanding of caries as a disease. Although he stressed that the caries lesion is related to many different factors, in his argument he considers one of two alternatives “a low-sugar diet or a lack of cariogenic bacterial species”.     

The significance of Aleš Hrdlička's “Neanderthal phase of man”: A historical and current assessment

Ale? Hrdli?ka's hypothesis on a Neandertal phase of human evolution is examined in light of current data and interpretations on Neandertals. Hrdli?ka's interpretations are related to his ideas regarding the peopling of the New World. A major early statement of Hrdli?ka's views on Neandertal was his Huxley Memorial Lecture of 1927. We assess this formulation and subsequent development of his hypothesis. Hrdli?ka's position is compared with the “presapiens” and “pre-neandertal” hypotheses on the basis of current theory and data.     

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.     

Unique ramus anatomy for Neandertals?

The ramus of Neandertal mandibles is said to show a suite of uniquely Neandertal character states that demonstrate the independent course of Neandertal evolution. This is the latest of numerous attempts to define cranial and mandibular autapomorphies for Neandertals. We examine variation in the four presumably autapomorphic ramal features and show they are neither monomorhic within Neandertals (to the contrary Neandertals are at least as variable as other human samples) nor unique to Neandertals, since they regularly appear in populations predating and postdating them. Neandertals differ from other human populations, both contemporary and recent, but the question of whether this fact reflects a divergent evolutionary trajectory must be addressed by the pattern of differences. In this case, as in the other attempts to establish Neandertal autapomorphies, rather than showing restricted variation and increased specialization, the Neandertal sample shows that the range of human variation in the recent past encompasses, and in some cases exceeds, human variation today, even in the very features claimed to be autapomorphic.     

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.     

Reexamination of the immature hominid maxilla from Tangier,Morocco

Reexamination of the immature Upper Pleistocene hominid maxilla from Mugharet el-'Aliya (Tangier), Morocco is undertaken in light of new evidence on the growth and development of Upper Pleistocene hominids. Metric and qualitative comparisons were made with 17 immature Upper Pleistocene maxillae, and with a recent Homo sapiens sapiens sample. No unambiguous criteria for aligning the maxilla with Neandertals were found, although one character, the degree of maxillary flexion on the zygoma, strongly suggests that this child could be a representative of H. s. sapiens. The probable lack of a canine fossa in Mugharet el-'Aliya 1, the primary criterion used previously to align it with Neandertals, cannot be accurately extrapolated to its adult form from this juvenile. The present evidence suggests that it is inappropriate to refer to this fossil as “Neandertal-like” or as a North African “neandertaloid.” Thus, the Tangier maxilla should not be cited as evidence for the presence of Neandertal facial features in North Africa during the Upper Pleistocene. © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

An interesting rock from Krapina

Symbolic items are seldom associated with Neandertals and, when they are, many paleoanthropologists consider them to be Neandertal imitations from modern Homo sapiens. At the Croatian site of Krapina dated to MIS 5e or about 130,000 years ago, among many items, a split limestone rock was excavated by Dragutin Gorjanović-Kramberger between 1899-1905. This brownish rock reveals many dark dendritic forms in cross- and longitudinal section. Of more than 1000 lithic items at Krapina, none resemble this specimen and we propose it was collected and not further processed by the Neandertals because of its aesthetic attributes. Along with other examples from sites in western and central Europe and the recent discovery of eight modified white-tailed eagle talons from Krapina, this unique item suggests that Neandertals were capable, on their own, of incorporating symbolic objects into their culture.     

The medial pterygoid tubercle in the Atapuerca Early and Middle Pleistocene mandibles: Evolutionary implications

Numerous studies have attempted to identify the presence of uniquely derived (autoapomorphic) Neandertal features. Here, we deal with the medial pterygoid tubercle (MTP), which is usually present on the internal face of the ascending ramus of Neandertal specimens. Our study stems from the identification of a hypertrophied tubercle in ATD6‐96, an Early Pleistocene mandible recovered from the TD6 level of the Atapuerca‐Gran Dolina site and attributed to Homo antecessor. Our review of the literature and study of numerous original fossil specimens and high quality replicas confirm that the MTP occurs at a high frequency in Neandertals (ca. 89%) and is also present in over half (ca. 55%) of the Middle Pleistocene Sima de los Huesos (SH) hominins. In contrast, it is generally absent or minimally developed in other extinct hominins, but can be found in variable frequencies (<ca. 25%) in Pleistocene and recent H. sapiens samples. The presence of this feature in ATD6‐96 joins other traits shared by H. antecessor, the SH hominins and Neandertals. Since the TD6 hominins have been attributed either to MIS 21 or to MIS 25, it seems that a suite of assumed derived Neandertal features appeared in the Early Pleistocene, and they should be interpreted as synapomorphies shared among different taxa. We suggest that H. antecessor, the SH hominins and Neandertals shared a common ancestor in which these features appeared during the Early Pleistocene. The presence of the MTP in taxa other than H. neanderthalensis precludes this feature from being a Neandertal autapomorphy. Am J Phys Anthropol 156:102–109, 2015 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

Neandertal genetic diversity: a fresh look from old samples

The recent publication of three old Neandertal mitochondrial sequences shows that the genetic diversity of the Neandertals has been largely underestimated. It suggests that the Neandertal population was extensively subdivided geographically, and that its genetic diversity changed markedly over time.     

Balancing Selection on a Regulatory Region Exhibiting Ancient Variation That Predates Human–Neandertal Divergence

Ancient population structure shaping contemporary genetic variation has been recently appreciated and has important implications regarding our understanding of the structure of modern human genomes. We identified a ∼36-kb DNA segment in the human genome that displays an ancient substructure. The variation at this locus exists primarily as two highly divergent haplogroups. One of these haplogroups (the NE1 haplogroup) aligns with the Neandertal haplotype and contains a 4.6-kb deletion polymorphism in perfect linkage disequilibrium with 12 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) across diverse populations. The other haplogroup, which does not contain the 4.6-kb deletion, aligns with the chimpanzee haplotype and is likely ancestral. Africans have higher overall pairwise differences with the Neandertal haplotype than Eurasians do for this NE1 locus (p<10⁻¹⁵). Moreover, the nucleotide diversity at this locus is higher in Eurasians than in Africans. These results mimic signatures of recent Neandertal admixture contributing to this locus. However, an in-depth assessment of the variation in this region across multiple populations reveals that African NE1 haplotypes, albeit rare, harbor more sequence variation than NE1 haplotypes found in Europeans, indicating an ancient African origin of this haplogroup and refuting recent Neandertal admixture. Population genetic analyses of the SNPs within each of these haplogroups, along with genome-wide comparisons revealed significant F_ST (p = 0.00003) and positive Tajima''s D (p = 0.00285) statistics, pointing to non-neutral evolution of this locus. The NE1 locus harbors no protein-coding genes, but contains transcribed sequences as well as sequences with putative regulatory function based on bioinformatic predictions and in vitro experiments. We postulate that the variation observed at this locus predates Human–Neandertal divergence and is evolving under balancing selection, especially among European populations.     

Neandertals and moderns mixed,and it matters

Twenty‐five years ago, the Middle‐to‐Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe could be represented as a straightforward process subsuming both the emergence of symbolic behavior and the replacement of Neandertals by modern humans. The Aurignacian was a proxy for the latter, during which enhanced cognitive capabilities explained ornaments and art. The few instances of Neandertal symbolism were deemed to long postdate contact and dismissed as “imitation without understanding,” if not geological contamination. Such views were strengthened by the recent finding that, in southern Africa, several features of the European Upper Paleolithic, including bone tools, ornaments, and microliths, emerged much earlier. Coupled with genetic suggestions of a recent African origin for extant humans, fossil discoveries bridging the transition between “archaics” and “moderns” in the realm of anatomy (Omo‐Kibish, Herto) seemingly closed the case. Over the last decade, however, taphonomic critiques of the archeology of the transition have made it clear that, in Europe, fully symbolic sapiens behavior predates both the Aurignacian and moderns. And, in line with evidence from the nuclear genome rejecting strict replacement models based on mtDNA alone, the small number of early modern specimens that passed the test of direct dating present archaic features unknown in the African lineage, suggesting admixture at the time of contact. In the realm of culture, the archeological evidence also supports a Neandertal contribution to Europe's earliest modern human societies, which feature personal ornaments completely unknown before immigration and are characteristic of such Neandertal‐associated archeological entities as the Châtelperronian and the Uluzzian. The chronometric data suggest that, north of the Ebro divide, the entire interaction process may have been resolved within the millennium centered around 42,000 calendar years ago. Such a rapid absorption of the Neandertals is consistent with the size imbalance between the two gene reservoirs and further supports significant levels of admixture.     

Neandertal postcranial remains from the Sima de las Palomas del Cabezo Gordo, Murcia, southeastern Spain

The Sima de las Palomas, southeastern Spain, has yielded a series of Neandertal postcranial remains, including immature and mature isolated elements and the fragmentary partial skeleton of a young adult (Palomas 92). The remains largely conform to the general late archaic/Neandertal morphological pattern in terms of humeral diaphyseal shape, pectoralis major tuberosity size and pillar thickness, ulnar coronoid process height, manual middle phalangeal epiphyseal breadth, manual distal phalangeal tuberosity shape and breadth, femoral diaphyseal shape, and probably body proportions. Palomas 92 contrasts with the Neandertals in having variably gracile hand remains, a more sellar trapezial metacarpal 1 facet, more anteroposteriorly expanded mid-proximal femoral diaphysis, and less robust pedal proximal phalanges. The Palomas Neandertals contrast with more northern European Neandertals particularly in various reflections of overall body size.     

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.     

尼安德特人基因组学研究进展

尼安德特人是现代人最近的旁支,也是化石资料最丰富的古人类。在现代人起源问题的争论中,尼安德特人对现代人是否有遗传贡献是一个焦点问题。文章综述了近年来关于尼安德特人线粒体基因组和核基因组的研究进展,初步研究表明尼安德特人可能对现代人有遗传贡献,这引发了人们对现代人起源问题的重新思考。藉尼人基因组研究经验进行的古人类基因组学研究将有望揭开现代人起源的谜团,并丰富进化生物学相关领域的理论体系。     

Neandertal energetics and foraging efficiency

Mechanical interpretations of Neandertal skeletal robusticity suggest extremely high activity levels compared to modern humans. Such activity patterns imply high energy requirements; yet it has been argued that Neandertals were also inefficient foragers. The present study addresses this apparent conflict by estimating energy needs in Neandertals and then evaluating those estimates in the context of energetic and foraging data compiled for contemporary human foragers and nonhuman primates. Energy demands for Neandertals were determined by first predicting basal metabolic rates (BMR) from body weight estimates using human standards developed by the World Health Organization [FAO/WHO/UNU (1985) Energy and Protein Requirements. Report of the Joint FAO/WHO/UNU Export Committee, Geneva: WHO]. Total daily energy expenditure (kcal/day) was then estimated assuming high levels of physical activity (i.e., 2--3 x BMR), comparable to those observed among subsistence-level populations today. These estimates of energy requirements (ranging from 3000--5500 kcal/day) were then used to determine Neandertal foraging efficiency assuming (1) minimal survival-level foraging returns, and (2) daily foraging times longer than those observed among any contemporary foraging group and comparable to a nonhuman primate. Even with these extremely conservative parameters, estimates of Neandertal foraging efficiency (approximately 800--1150 kcal/h foraged) were comparable to those observed among living hunter-gatherers. These results indicate that if Neandertals did have heavy activity levels, as implied by their skeletal robusticity, they would have required foraging efficiencies within the range observed among modern groups. Thus, Neandertals could have been either highly active or poor foragers, but they could not have been both.     

Revisiting dental fluctuating asymmetry in neandertals and modern humans

Previous studies have suggested that Neandertals experienced greater physiological stress and/or were less capable of mitigating stress than most prehistoric modern human populations. The current study compares estimates of dental fluctuating asymmetry (DFA) for prehistoric Inupiat from Point Hope Alaska, the Late Archaic, and Protohistoric periods from Ohio and West Virginia, and a modern sample from Ohio to Neandertals from Europe and Southwest Asia. DFA results from developmental perturbation during crown formation and is thus an indicator of developmental stress, which previous studies have found to be higher in Neandertals than in several modern human populations. Here, we use recent methodological improvements in the analysis of fluctuating asymmetry suggested by Palmer and Strobeck (Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17 ( 1986 ) 391–421, Developmental instability: causes and consequences ( 2003a ) v.1–v.36, Developmental instability: causes and consequences ( 2003b ) 279–319) and compare the fit of Neandertal DFA Index values with those of modern humans. DFA estimates for each of the modern population samples exceeded measurement error, with the Inupiat exhibiting the highest levels of DFA for most tooth positions. All significant Neandertal z‐scores were positive, exceeding the estimates for each of the modern prehistoric groups. Neandertals exhibited the fewest significant differences from the Inupiat (9.2% of values are significant at P < 0.05), while for the other modern prehistoric groups more than 10% of the Neandertal z‐scores are significant at P < 0.05, more than 90% of these significant scores at P < 0.01. These results suggest that the Inupiat experienced greater developmental stress than the other prehistoric population samples, and that Neandertals were under greater developmental stress than all other prehistoric modern human samples. Am J Phys Anthropol 149:193–204, 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Allometry,merism, and tooth shape of the upper deciduous M2 and permanent M1

The aims of this study were to investigate the effect of allometry on the shape of dm² and M¹ crown outlines and to examine whether the trajectory and magnitude of scaling are shared between species. The sample included 160 recent Homo sapiens, 28 Upper Paleolithic H. sapiens, 10 early H. sapiens, and 33 H. neanderthalensis (Neandertal) individuals. Of these, 97 were dm²/M¹ pairs from the same individuals. A two‐block partial least squares analysis of paired individuals revealed a significant correlation in crown shape between dm² and M¹. A principal component analysis confirmed that Neandertal and H. sapiens dm² and M¹ shapes differ significantly and that this difference is primarily related to hypocone size and projection. Allometry accounted for a small but significant proportion of the total morphological variance. We found the magnitude of the allometric effect to be significantly stronger in Neandertals than in H. sapiens. Procrustes distances were significantly different between the two tooth classes in Neandertals, but not among H. sapiens groups. Nevertheless, we could not reject the null hypothesis that the two species share the same allometric trajectory. Although size clearly contributes to the unique shape of the Neandertal dm² and M¹, the largest H. sapiens teeth do not exhibit the most Neandertal‐like morphology. Hence, additional factors must contribute to the differences in dm² and M¹ crown shape between these two species. We suggest an investigation of the role of timing and rate of development on the shapes of the dm² and M¹ may provide further answers. Am J Phys Anthropol 154:104–114, 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.