Tuesday, 25 February 2014

The Seven Daughters of Eve: The Science That Reveals Our Genetic Ancestry

 

by Bryan Sykes

The Seven Daughters of Eve: The Science That Reveals Our Genetic AncestryOne of the most dramatic stories of genetic discovery since James Watson's The Double Helix—a work whose scientific and cultural reverberations will be discussed for years to come.
In 1994 Professor Bryan Sykes, a leading world authority on DNA and human evolution, was called in to examine the frozen remains of a man trapped in glacial ice in northern Italy. News of both the Ice Man's discovery and his age, which was put at over five thousand years, fascinated scientists and newspapers throughout the world. But what made Sykes's story particularly revelatory was his successful identification of a genetic descendant of the Ice Man, a woman living in Great Britain today.
How was Sykes able to locate a living relative of a man who died thousands of years ago? In The Seven Daughters of Eve, he gives us a firsthand account of his research into a remarkable gene, which passes undiluted from generation to generation through the maternal line. After plotting thousands of DNA sequences from all over the world, Sykes found that they clustered around a handful of distinct groups. Among Europeans and North American Caucasians, there are, in fact, only seven.
This conclusion was staggering: almost everyone of native European descent, wherever they may live throughout the world, can trace their ancestry back to one of seven women, the Seven Daughters of Eve. Naming them Ursula, Xenia, Helena, Velda, Tara, Katrine, and Jasmine, Sykes has created portraits of their disparate worlds by mapping the migratory patterns followed by millions of their ancestors.
In reading the stories of these seven women, we learn exactly how our origins can be traced, how and where our ancient genetic ancestors lived, and how we are each living proof of the almost indestructible strands of DNA, which have survived over so many thousands of years. Indeed, The Seven Daughters of Eve is filled with dramatic stories: from Sykes's identification, using DNA samples from two living relatives, of the remains of Tsar Nicholas and Tsaress Alexandra, to the Caribbean woman whose family had been sold into slavery centuries before and whose ancestry Sykes was able to trace back to the Eastern coast of central Africa. Ultimately, Sykes's investigation reveals that, as a race, what humans have in common is more deeply embedded than what separates us.
(less)

Hardcover, 320 pages

Published July 17th 2001 by W. W. Norton & Company (first published January 1st 2001)

original title

The Seven Daughters of Eve: The Science That Reveals Our Genetic Ancestry

ISBN

0393020185 (ISBN13: 9780393020182)

edition language

English

Introduction: Evolution

 

In 1859 Charles Darwin published his theory of natural selection amid an explosion of controversy. Like the work of Copernicus in the 16th century revealing the movement of the Earth, Darwin's idea shook the foundations of the establishment and profoundly altered humanity's view of its place in the universe.

Today evolution is the unifying force in modern biology; it ties together fields as disparate as genetics, microbiology and palaeontology. It is an elegant and convincing explanation for the staggering diversity of Earth's five million or more living species.

Evolution has several facets. The first is the theory that all living species are the modified descendents of earlier species, and that we all share a common ancestor in the distant past. All species are therefore related via a vast tree of life. The second is that this evolution is driven by a process of natural selection or the - "survival of the fittest".

Darwin argued that all individuals struggle to survive on limited resourses, but some have small, heritable differences that give them a greater chance of surviving or reproducing, than individuals lacking these beneficial traits. Such individuals have a higher evolutionary fitness, and the useful traits they possess become more common in the population because more of their offspring survive.

Eventually these advantageous traits become the norm. Conversely, harmful traits are quickly eradicated as individuals that possess them are less likely to reproduce. Natural selection therefore works to create a population that is highly suited to its environment, and can adapt to changes.

Sex wars

When individuals compete for limited resources in their environment they are subject to ecological selection. However, useful traits are not only those that give a survival advantage, but also those that increase a plant or animal's chance of reproducing. These traits are subject to sexual selection.

Sexually selected traits can make a male organism more attractive to females, the peacock's tail for example. These are sometimes correlated to the health of an individual, and are therefore an honest badge of fitness. Another type of sexually selected trait gives males a physical advantage in out-competing other males for mates, the stag's antlers for example. Sexual selection can even act at a molecular level.

Birds are particularly known for showy ornaments that attract mates, but also increase the chances of being spotted by predators. Other sexually selected traits include: lion's manes, great tit's or budgie's plumage, grouse mating rituals, insect love tokens, the height of human males and human hair, intelligence and facial features.

Species spawning

Over eons, and many generations, the process of slow evolutionary change, called anagenesis, can cause one species to evolve into another. But most new species form in a speciation event, when one species splits into two; a process Darwin called the "mystery of mysteries".

Allopatric speciation happens when a geographical change - a river changing course for example or a new mountain range - splits a species in two. Once separated, as happened to antelope squirrels on either side of the Grand Canyon in the US, the populations evolve independently, eventually becoming distinct and reproductively isolated.

Sympatric speciation occurs when new species emerge without separation, such as the 13 species of Galapagos finch or Africa's cichlid fish. These species adapt to different opportunities in the environment, and then cease to interbreed - perhaps due to some isolating mechanism. Rarely new species can also form through hybridisation, such as sunflowers.

Darwinian evolution is a slow, gradual process. But much of the fossil record hints at puzzling long periods of stasis, with scarcely any change. In 1972, evolutionary biologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen J Gould argued instead that species, perhaps even communities, form suddenly in fits and starts of change. They called the theory punctuated equilibrium.

Like individuals in a population, species also struggle amongst themselves to survive, and most become extinct over time. Species can also die out in mass extinctions, such as the one that caused the demise of the dinosaurs. Today we may be in the throes of another mass extinction, caused by human overexploitation of habitats.

Evolutionary scenarios

During his voyage on the HMS Beagle and throughout his life, Darwin gathered evidence that contributed to his theory of natural selection. In Origin of Species he presented support from the fields of embryology, geography, palaeontology and comparative anatomy (see interactive graphic). Darwin also found evidence for his theory in examples of convergent evolution, co-evolution and adaptive radiation.

Convergent evolution, is when the same adaptations have evolved independently in different lineages of species under similar selection pressures. Today we see convergent evolution in species as diverse as: shark and camels, shrimps and grasshoppers, flamingos and spoonbills, marsupial and placental mammals and bioluminescent sea creatures. We also see it in the ears and teeth of mammals.

Co-evolution is when the evolutionary history of two species or groups of species is intimately intertwined. Examples include: the co-evolution of flowering plants and pollinators such as bees, lizards and moths; pocket gophers and their lice; humans and intestinal microbes; and the war our immune systems wage with the pathogens that attack us.

Adaptive radiation is the rapid speciation of one ancestral species to fill many empty ecological niches. Adaptive radiations are most common when animals and plants arrive at previously uninhabited islands. Examples of adaptive radiation can be found in: the Galapagos finches, Australia's marsupials, Hawaii's honeycreepers and fruit flies, Madagascar's carnivores and other mammals, New Zealand's birds and the prehistoric flying pterosaurs.

Secret code

Darwin was able to establish natural selection, without any understanding of the genetic mechanisms of inheritance, or the source of novel variation in a population. His own theory on the transmission of traits, called pangenesis, was completely wrong.

It was not until Gregor Mendel and the start of the 20th century that the genetic mechanism of inheritance began to be revealed. We now know that most traits, such as skin colour, eye colour and blood group are determined by our DNA and genes. During the 20th century, evolutionary biologists such as Ernst Mayr, J.B.S. Haldane, Julian Huxley, and Theodosius Dobzhansky combined Darwinian evolution with our emerging knowledge of genetics to produce the "modern synthesis" that we call evolutionary biology today.

Most genes come in a variety of forms, one inherited from each parent. The varieties are known as alleles, and encode slightly different traits. The incidence of different traits, or alleles, in a population is driven by natural selection and genetic drift, which can randomly reduce genetic variation. Today, evolution is defined as the change in the frequency of alleles in populations over time.

New traits are introduced into populations by gene flow from other populations or by mutation. Mutation is a change in the structure of a gene and can be caused by errors in copying DNA, carcinogenic chemicals, viruses, UV-light and radiation. Most mutations are neutral, having no effect on gene function; others are harmful, such as the ones that cause inherited diseases like cystic fibrosis. Rarely mutations can lead to beneficial new traits, such as increased resistance to malaria.

Today evolutionary biologists are largely divided into two camps. The pro-selectionists such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Pinker, Edward O Wilson, Matt Ridley, Mark Ridley and Jared Diamond believe in the primacy of natural selection as the principle guiding evolution. Others such as Niles Eldredge, Stephen J. Gould, Brian Goodwin, Stuart Kauffman and Steven Rose argue that we are still missing something big, and that natural selection does not explain the full complexity of evolution.

Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

 

If you think you understand it, you don't know nearly enough about it

It will soon be 200 years since the birth of Charles Darwin and 150 years since the publication of On the Origin of Species, arguably the most important book ever written. In it, Darwin outlined an idea that many still find shocking - that all life on Earth, including human life, evolved through natural selection.

Darwin presented compelling evidence for evolution in On the Origin and, since his time, the case has become overwhelming. Countless fossil discoveries allow us to trace the evolution of today's organisms from earlier forms. DNA sequencing has confirmed beyond any doubt that all living creatures share a common origin. Innumerable examples of evolution in action can be seen all around us, from the pollution-matching peppered moth to fast-changing viruses such as HIV and H5N1 bird flu. Evolution is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth.

And yet despite an ever-growing mountain of evidence, most people around the world are not taught the truth about evolution, if they are taught about it at all. Even in the UK, the birthplace of Darwin with an educated and increasingly secular population, one recent poll suggests less than half the population accepts evolution.

For those who have never had the opportunity to find out about biology or science, claims made by those who believe in supernatural alternatives to evolutionary theory can appear convincing. Meanwhile, even among those who accept evolution, misconceptions abound.

Most of us are happy to admit that we do not understand, say, string theory in physics, yet we are all convinced we understand evolution. In fact, as biologists are discovering, its consequences can be stranger than we ever imagined. Evolution must be the best-known yet worst-understood of all scientific theories.

So here is New Scientist's guide to some of the most common myths and misconceptions about evolution.

There are already several good and comprehensive guides out there. But there can't be too many.

Shared misconceptions:

Everything is an adaptation produced by natural selection

Natural selection is the only means of evolution

Natural selection leads to ever-greater complexity

Evolution produces creatures perfectly adapted to their environment

Evolution always promotes the survival of species

It doesn't matter if people do not understand evolution

"Survival of the fittest" justifies "everyone for themselves"

Evolution is limitlessly creative

Evolution cannot explain traits such as homosexuality

Creationism provides a coherent alternative to evolution

Creationist myths:

Evolution must be wrong because the Bible is inerrant

Accepting evolution undermines morality

Evolutionary theory leads to racism and genocide

Religion and evolution are incompatible

Half a wing is no use to anyone

Evolutionary science is not predictive

Evolution cannot be disproved so is not science

Evolution is just so unlikely to produce complex life forms

Evolution is an entirely random process

Mutations can only destroy information, not create it

Darwin is the ultimate authority on evolution

The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex

Yet more creationist misconceptions

Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620#.Uwy_7c58p-8

Timeline: Human Evolution

 

55 million years ago (MYA)

First primitive primates evolve, lives in the shadow of the dinosaurs

8 - 6 MYA

First gorillas evolve. Later, chimp and human lineages diverge

5.8 MYA

Orrorin tugenensis, oldest human ancestor thought to have walked on two legs

5.5 MYA

Ardipithecus, early "proto-human" shares traits with chimps and gorillas, and is forest-dwelling

4 MYA

Australopithecinces appear. They have brains no larger than a chimpanzee's - with a volume around 400 - 500 cm3 -, but walk upright on two legs. First human ancestors to live on the savannah

3.2 MYA

Lucy, famous specimen of Australopithecus afarensis, lives near what is now Hadar, Ethiopia

2.7 MYA

Paranthropus, lives in woods and grasslands, has massive jaws for chewing on roots and vegetation. Becomes extinct 1.2 MYA

2.5 MYA

Homo habilis appears. Its face protrudes less than earlier hominids, but still retains many ape features. Has a brain volume of around 600 cm3

Hominids start to use stone tools regularly, created by splitting pebbles - this starts Oldowan tradition of toolmaking, which last a million years

Some hominids develop meat-rich diets as scavengers, the extra energy may have favoured the evolution of larger brains

2 MYA

Evidence of Homo ergaster, with a brain volume of up to 850 cm3, in Africa

1.8 - 1.5 MYA

Homo erectus is found in Asia. First true hunter-gatherer ancestor, and also first to have migrated out of Africa in large numbers. It attains a brain size of around 1000 cm3

1.6 MYA

Possible first sporadic use of fire suggested by discoloured sediments in Koobi Fora, Kenya. More convincing evidence of charred wood and stone tools is found in Israel and dated to 780,000 years ago

More complex Acheulean stone tools start to be produced and are the dominant technology until 100,000 years ago

600,000 YA

Homo Heidelbergensis lives in Africa and Europe. Similar brain capacity to modern humans

500,000 YA

Earliest evidence of purpose-built shelters - wooden huts - are known from sites near Chichibu, Japan

400,000 YA

Early humans begin to hunt with spears

325,000 YA

Oldest surviving early human footprints are left by three people who scrambled down the slopes of a volcano in Italy

280,000 YA

First complex stone blades and grinding stones

230,000 YA

Neanderthals appear and are found across Europe, from Britain in the west to Iran in the east, until they become extinct with the advent of modern humans 28,000 years ago

195,000 YA

Our own species Homo sapiens appears on the scene - and shortly after begins to migrate across Asia and Europe. Oldest modern human remains are two skulls found in Ethiopia that date to this period. Average human brain volume is 1350 cm3

170,000 YA

Mitochondrial Eve, the direct ancestor to all living people today, may have been living in Africa

150,000 YA

Humans possibly capable of speech. 100,000-year-old shell jewellery suggests that that people develop complex speech and symbolism

140,000 YA

First evidence of long-distance trade

110,000 YA

Earliest beads - made from ostrich eggshells - and jewellery

50,000 YA

"Great leap forward": human culture starts to change much more rapidly than before; people begin burying their dead ritually; create clothes from animal hides; and develop complex hunting techniques, such as pit-traps.

Colonisation of Australia by modern humans

33,000 YA

Oldest cave art. Later, Stone Age artisans create the spectacular murals at Lascaux and Chauvet in France

Homo erectus dies out in Asia - replaced by modern man

18,000 YA

Homo Floresiensis, "Hobbit" people, found on the Indonesian island of Flores. They stand just over 1 metre tall, and have brains similar in size to chimpanzees, yet have advanced stone tools

12,000 YA

Modern people reach the Americas

10,000 YA

Agriculture develops and spread. First villages. Possible domestication of dogs

5,500 YA

Stone Age ends and Bronze Age begins. Humans begin to smelt and work copper and tin, and use them in place of stone implements

5,000 YA
Earliest known writing
4,000 to 3,500 BC

The Sumerians of Mesopotamia develop the world's first civilisation

http://www.newscientist.com/info/in165

Introduction: Human Evolution

 

The incredible story of our evolution from ape ancestors spans 6 million years or more, and features the acquirement of traits from bipedal walking, large brains, hairlessness, tool-making, hunting and harnessing fire, to the more recent development of language, art, culture and civilisation.

Darwin's The Origin of Species, published in 1859, suggested that humans were descended from African apes. However, no fossils of our ancestors were discovered in Africa until 1924, when Raymond Dart dug up the "Taung child" - a 3-million to 4 million-year-old Australopithecine.

Over the last century, many spectacular discoveries have shed light on the history of the human family. Somewhere between 12 and 19 different species of early humans are recognised, though palaeoanthropologists bitterly dispute how they are related. Famous fossils include the remarkably complete "Lucy", dug up in Ethiopia in 1974, and the astonishing "hobbit" species, Homo floresiensis, found on an Indonesian island in 2004.

Walking tall

Humans are really just a peculiar African ape - we share about 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives. Genetics and fossil evidence hint that we last shared a common ancestor 7 to 10 million years ago - even if we continued hybridising long after.

At around 6 million years ago, the first apes to walk on two legs appear in the fossil records. Despite the fact that many of these Australopithecines and other early humans were no bigger than chimps and had similar-sized brains, the shift to bipedalism was highly significant. Aside from our large brain, bipedalism is perhaps the most important difference between humans and apes, as it freed our hands to use tools.

Bipedalism may have evolved when drier conditions shrank dense African forests. It must have allowed our ancestors to spot predators from further away, reach hanging fruit from the ground, and reduce exposure to sunlight. Evidence that Australopithecines walked upright includes analysis of the shape of their bones and fossilised footprints.

One famous member of the species Australopithecus afarensis is the remarkably complete fossil found by palaeaoanthropologist Donald Johanson in Hadar, Ethiopia in 1974. The 3.2-million-year-old fossil was named Lucy, after the Beatles' song Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

She stood around 1.1 metres (3.5 feet) tall and although she walked on two legs, she probably had a less graceful gait than us, since she walked with them bent.

Scientist's have modelled her gait using computers. Their characteristic long arms and curved fingers suggest that at least some Australopithecines were still good climbers.

Hundreds of other fossils of Australopithecus afarensis have now also been discovered. Other related early human species include Australopithecus africanus - such as the Taung child - 3.5-million-year-old Kenyanthropus platyops, 5.8-million to 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus, 5.8-million-year-old Orrorin tugenensis and 6 million year old Sahelanthropus tchadensis.

Tooled up

Australopithecines are thought to be the ancestors of Homo, the group to which our own species, Homo sapiens, belongs.

However, Australopithecines may also have given rise to another branch of hominid evolution - the vegetarian Paranthropus species. Around 2.7 million years ago, species such as Paranthropus bosei in east Africa evolved to take advantage of the dry grasslands. This included the development of enormous jaws and chewing muscles for grinding up tough roots and tubers.

By 2.4 million years ago, Homo habilis had appeared - the first recognisably human-like hominid to appear in the fossil record - which lived alongside P. bosei. Their bodies were around two-thirds the size of ours, but their brains were significantly larger than Australopithecines with a volume of about 600 cubic centimetres.

H. habilis had much smaller teeth and jaws than Paranthropus and was probably the first human to eat large quantities of meat. This meaty diet, acquired through scavenging, may have provided energy required to kick-start an increasing brain size. A mutation that weakened jaw muscles and gave our brains more space to grow may also lie behind the big brains we have today.

H. habilis - which means "handy man" - was also the first early human to habitually create tools and use them to break bones and extract marrow. This tool-making tradition, known as Oldowan, lasted virtually unchanged for a million years. Oldowan tools were made by breaking an angular rock with a "hammerstone" to give simple, sharp-edged stone flakes for chopping and slicing.

Despite their own increases in brain size, the Paranthropus group of species had become extinct by 1.2 million years ago. Some experts speculate that it was learning to work as a team against predators that gave Homo the edge.

Modern lookers

At around 1.65 million years ago, another early human, Homo ergaster, started to create tools in a slightly different fashion. This so-called Acheulean tradition was the tool-making technology used for nearly the entire Stone Age, and practiced until 100,000 years ago. Acheulean tools, such as hand axes and cleavers, were larger and more sophisticated than their predecessors'. They may have been status symbols as well as tools.

Homo ergaster first appeared in Africa around 2 million years ago, and in many ways resembled us. Though they had brow ridges, they had lost the stoop and long arms of their ancestors. They may have been even more slender than us and were probably well-adapted to running long distances. Some experts believe that they were the first to sport largely hairless bodies, and to sweat, though another theory puts our hairlessness down to an aquatic phase.

One famous example of a more modern looking early human is the Turkana boy, a teenager when he died, 1.6 million years ago in Kenya. The shape of this fossil showed that the human pelvis had reached today's narrow proportions. Combined with the growing size of the human head and brain, this had far-reaching implications: human women now need help for a successful birth; and human babies are born earlier, and need a longer period of childhood care, than those of apes.

Meat-eating, however, may have allowed us to become early weaners.

H.ergaster may have been the first early human to leave Africa. Bones dated to around 1.75 million years ago have been found in Dmanisi in Georgia.

Shortly afterwards, Homo erectus appeared - the first early human whose fossils have been seen in large numbers outside of Africa. The first specimen discovered, a single cranium, was unearthed in Indonesia in 1891. H.erectus was highly successful, spreading to much of Asia between 1.8 and 1.5 million years ago, and surviving as recently as 27,000 years ago.

This species, with a brain volume of around 1000 cm3 would have interacted with modern humans. They may have been the first people to take to the seas and habitually hunt prey such as mammoths and wild horses, although there is some debate about this. They may also have harnessed the use of fire and built the first shelters.

In 2004, the remains of a tiny and mysterious human species, that may have lived as recently as 13,000 years ago, was discovered on an Indonesian island. More bones of the "hobbit", or Homo floresiensis, were uncovered in 2005. Some studies suggest it had an advanced brain and was unequivocally a separate species - but others argue that these people were modern humans suffering from a genetic disorder.

First Europeans

Early human fossil evidence from Spain, dating to around 780,000 years ago, points to the first known Europeans. Stone tools have also been found in England from around 700,000 years ago, attributed to Homo antecessor or Homo heidelbergensis.

More recently, 325,000-year-old H. heidelbergensis tracks were discovered preserved on an Italian volcano. Some of the biggest collections of hominid remains ever found are from Boxgrove in England and Atapuerca in Spain. Experts believe that these humans may have had ears equipped to detect nuances of human speech, whether or not they had simple language.

Some palaeoanthropologists believe that H. heidelbergensis evolved into our own species in Africa, whilst in Europe, the Neanderthals emerged as a separate species.

The Neanderthals were found across Europe, between 200,000 and 28,000 years ago. Though they still possessed pronounced brow ridges and were more thick-set, these people largely resembled us. They were as nimble-fingered, and matured at a similar age to us. Their brains were even slightly larger. It is not known if the Neanderthals had developed simple language. But they did possess some aspects of our culture, such as ritual burying of the dead; creating art; using tools to attack each other; and complex hunting methods - as evidenced by a remarkable butchery site in the UK.

Experts disagree about whether the Neanderthals hybridised with humans or not, or if our arrival killed them. Plunging temperatures, free trade and poor memory may all have contributed towards their extinction.

Out of Africa

There are several competing theories about how all these early humans are related to us today.

Most widely accepted is the "Out of Africa" hypothesis. This holds that ancient humans evolved exclusively in Africa, then spread across the world in two migration waves. The migration of H. erectus across Eurasia made up the first wave. Later, our own species evolved in Africa and fanned out in a second wave 200,000 years ago. These new people totally replaced H. erectus in Asia and the Neanderthals in Europe.

Advocates of the multiregional hypothesis instead believe that early humans started to leave Africa around 2 million years ago, and were never totally replaced by recent migrants. They believe these far-flung hominids exchanged genes and interbred, slowly evolving into modern humans - in many places, simultaneously. Through gene flow, modern characteristics such as large brains gradually spread, it is suggested. Some fossils seem to support the multiregional hypothesis. H. erectus skulls in Asia, for example, have similarly flat cheek and nasal regions as people there today do.

Most - but not all - genetic evidence appears to back the Out of Africa hypothesis. There is surprisingly little variation in the mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) of different people today, which suggest that humans evolved recently from a small ancestral population. In addition, the variation of mDNA in Africans is greater than elsewhere, suggesting that people have been evolving there for longer.

We may all be descended from a single African woman - dubbed Mitochondrial Eve - within the last 200,000 years. Male Y-chromosome DNA hints at a single male progenitor, too. Fewer than 50 people could have given rise to the entire population of Europe, experts believe.

Cultural revolution

The earliest anatomically modern humans are though to have arrived around 200,000 years ago. These fossils show a rounded braincase and flatter face. Their brains had reached modern proportions of about 1350 cm3. Two skulls found in Ethiopia make up the oldest modern human remains known, at 195,000 years old.

Modern humans had made it to Asia by 90,000 years ago, Australia by 60,000 years ago, Europe and the Arctic by 40,000 years ago, and the Americas by 12,000 years ago.

Throughout history, tool use appears to have progressed slowly - once innovations were made, they lasted millions of years barely altering. But around 50,000 years ago something changed, and culture started to develop at a much more rapid rate.

Modern humans habitually began innovating new tools types, burying their dead, creating jewellery, developing sophisticated hunting techniques such as pitfall traps, using animal skins for clothing, decorating their bodies, and creating art and cave paintings. Although some of these traits appeared earlier, they seem to have only have been used sporadically until this time.

These changes may have been linked to increasing brain size or the way we thought - or could also be due to free trade, and the evolution of language and communication. The dawn of human civilisation has been dated to around 30,000 years ago. The earliest agriculture and domestication of species is known only as recently as 10,000 years ago. The first human cities appeared in Mesopotamia around 4,000 years ago.

Are we still evolving today? If so, how will we evolve in the future? Some argue that humans have evolved little in the last 50,000 years - but other studies suggests that thousands of genes have changed since then.

We may even be on the verge of the next step of human evolution - the human global "superorganism".

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9990-introduction-human-evolution.html?full=true#.Uwy_js58p-8

Human line 'nearly split in two'

 

By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News

Hunter-gatherers (National Geographic)

Humans diverged into separate populations for 100,000 years

Ancient humans started down the path of evolving into two separate species before merging back into a single population, a genetic study suggests.

The genetic split in Africa resulted in distinct populations that lived in isolation for as much as 100,000 years, the scientists say.

This could have been caused by arid conditions driving a wedge between humans in eastern and southern Africa.

Details have been published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

It would be the longest period for which modern human populations have been isolated from one another.

But other scientists said it was still too early to reconstruct a meaningful picture of humankind's early history in Africa. They argue that other scenarios could also account for the data.

At the time of the split - some 150,000 years ago - our species, Homo sapiens, was still confined to the African continent.

We don't know how long it takes for hominids to fission off into separate species, but clearly they were separated for a very long time

Dr Spencer Wells, Genographic Project

The results have come from the Genographic Project, a major effort to track human migrations through DNA.

The latest conclusions are based on analysis of mitochondrial DNA in present-day African populations. This type of DNA is the genetic material stored in mitochondria - the "powerhouses" of cells.

It is passed down from a mother to her offspring, providing a unique record of maternal inheritance.

"We don't know how long it takes for hominids to fission off into separate species, but clearly they were separated for a very long time," said Dr Spencer Wells, director of the Genographic Project.

"They came back together again during the Late Stone Age - driven by population expansion."

Family tree

Although present-day people carry a signature of the ancient split in their DNA, today's Africans are part of a single population.

The researchers compiled a "family tree" of different mitochondrial DNA groupings found in Africa.

A major split occurred near the root of the tree as early as 150,000 years ago.

On one side of this divide are the mitochondrial lineages now found predominantly in East and West Africa, and all maternal lineages found outside Africa.

On the other side of the divide are lineages predominantly found in the Khoi and San (Khoisan) hunter-gatherer people of southern Africa.

Many African populations today harbour a mixture of both.

Although there is very deep divergence in the mitochondrial lineages, that can be different from inferring when the populations diverged from one another

Dr Sarah Tishkoff, University of Pennsylvania

The scientists say the most likely scenario is that two populations went their separate ways early in our evolutionary history.

This gave rise to separate human communities localised to eastern and southern Africa that evolved in isolation for between 50,000 and 100,000 years.

This divergence could have been related to climate change: recent studies of ancient climate data suggest that eastern Africa went through a series of massive droughts between 135,000-90,000 years ago.

Lead author Doron Behar, from the Rambam Medical Center in Israel commented: "It is possible the harsh environment and changing climate made populations migrate to other places in order to have a better chance of survival.

"Some of them found places where they could and - perhaps - some didn't. More than that we cannot say."

Back together

Dr Wells told BBC News: "Once this population reached southern Africa, it was cut off from the eastern African population by these drought events which were on the route between them."

Modern humans are often presumed to have originated in East Africa and then spread out to populate other areas. But the data could equally support an origin in southern Africa followed by a migration to East and West Africa.

The genetic data show that populations came back together as a single, pan-African population about 40,000 years ago.

This renewed contact appears to coincide with the development of more advanced stone tool technology and may have been helped by more favourable environmental conditions.

"[The mixing] was two-way to a certain extent, but the majority of mitochondrial lineages seem to have come from north-eastern Africa down to the south," said Spencer Wells.

But other scientists said different scenarios could explain the data.

Dr Sarah Tishkoff, an expert on African population genetics from the University of Pennsylvania, said the Khoisan might once have carried many more of the presumed "East African" lineages but that these could have been lost over time.

"Although there is very deep divergence in the mitochondrial lineages, that can be different from inferring when the populations diverged from one another and there can be many demographic scenarios to account for it," she told BBC News.

She added: "As a general rule of thumb, when mitochondrial genetic lineages split, it will usually precede the population split. It can often be difficult to infer from one to the other."

The University of Pennsylvania researcher stressed it was not possible to pinpoint where in Africa the populations had once lived - complicating the process of reconstructing scenarios from genetic data.

The Genographic Project's findings are also consistent with the idea - held for some years now - that modern humans had a close brush with extinction in the evolutionary past.

The number of early humans may have shrunk as low as 2,000 before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.

Paul.Rincon-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

The evolution of man

 

As a footprint believed to date back more than 900,000 years and linked to our ancestors was discovered on a beach, we look at how man has evolved from millions of years ago

12:34PM GMT 07 Feb 2014

6 million years ago – The human lineage split from chimpanzees, our closest known relatives
(AP)

3.8 – 3 million years ago - Australopithecus afarensis, an early hominid - a term used to describe early humans - which walked on two legs, lived in eastern Africa. The species was similar to apes in terms of brain size, diet and biology.

2.2 million years ago - Homo habilis lived in Africa and had a short body, with ape-like arms, as well as large brain.

 

1.8 million years ago Homo erectus, the oldest known species to have a human-like body, left Africa. This species had fairly modern features, with a brain 60 to 70 per cent of the size of a human.

1 million years ago - Primitive human ancestors arrive in Europe

900,000 years ago – Species related to Homo antecessor or Pioneer Man, believed to have lived after a footprint was found on a beach in Norfolk.

Homo antecessor footprints from Norfolk (MARTIN BATES)

400,000-600,000 years agoNeanderthals appeared, and existed in western Eurasia from about 200,000 years ago. They are believed to have overlapped with humans between 50,000 and 30,000 years ago in western Eurasia, and had slightly larger brains than humans.

(ALAMY)

195,000 years agoHomo sapiens, believed to be the most closely related to modern man, appear in Africa

Models of a homo sapien and neanderthal (Natural History Museum)

40,000 years ago - Homo sapiens arrived in Europe

Dr. M. R. Srinivasan, Former Indian Atomic Chief, Discusses India’s Nuclear Future

Dr. M.R.Srinivasan, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of India

By Srinivas Laxman | Editorials
August 29, 2011

Honest truths and hard facts on India’s nuclear program rang aloud at the Nehru Center, by Dr. M.R.Srinivasan, the former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of India (1987-1990).

AsianScientist (Aug. 29, 2011) – Honest truths, hard facts, and criticisms on India’s nuclear program rang aloud this Wednesday at the Nehru Center in Mumbai, India. These words came neither from an armchair critic nor an environmentalist, but from the man who once headed India’s nuclear program and is still associated with it.

He is none other than Dr. M. R. Srinivasan, chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) between 1987 and 1990, and current AEC member, who was there to give a presentation entitled Future of Nuclear Power after Fukushima.

The presentation marked the first Dr. H. N. Sethna Memorial Lecture, named after Dr. Sethna, a former chief of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission who died in September 2010.

Speaking to Asian Scientist Magazine on the sidelines of the event, Dr. Srinivasan discussed topics that spanned from Pakistan’s move to strengthen its nuclear arsenal, to competition from China.

We also bring you excerpts from his presentation that covered topics ranging from nuclear submarines, thorium use in nuclear plants, and the Japanese Fukushima Dai-ichi accident.
On Pakistan expanding its nuclear arsenal:

Dr. Srinivasan: Yes we have to keep watching the situation. The military rules the country and they want the bomb.

Expressing deep concern about the expansion and strengthening of Pakistan’s nuclear program, he regretted that the leverage of the US in this matter was very minimal, failing to exercise much influence on Pakistan in forcing it to reduce its atomic weapons.

Two investigative reports have revealed Pakistan’s nuclear expansion. A book written by two investigative reporters, Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark, called Nuclear Deception, describes how the US secretly backed Pakistan’s nuclear weaponization program while keeping a public posture of opposition to it. Another report in the current issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists said that Pakistan will have 150 to 200 nuclear warheads in a decade – the world’s fastest growing nuclear stockpile.

Asked if there was a danger of Pakistani extremists taking over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, Dr. Srinivasan gave a measured response.

Dr. Srinivasan: I do not want to ring an alarm, but such a danger does exist because of various factors.
On India’s nuclear submarine program:

Dr. Srinivasan: The Department of Atomic Energy’s Rare Material Plant at Ratnahalli, near Mysore, is being further expanded to cater to India’s nuclear submarine program.

The first indigenous nuclear submarine, INS Arihant, sailed into the waters at Vishakapatnam in Andhra Pradesh in July 2009 and is currently undergoing sea trials. It is expected to be commissioned into the Indian Navy by the end of the year. Four submarines of a similar class will be commissioned into the Indian Navy by 2015.

The indigenous n-submarines have pressurized heavy water reactors designed by the Bhabha Atomic Research Center. The final production version was built by the Indira Gandhi Center For Atomic Research at Kalpakkam, near Chennai.

The submarines use enriched uranium which is fabricated at the Rare Material Plant.
On India’s ‘opposition for opposition sake’:

Dr. Srinivasan: The world watches China’s achievements with wonder and we in India with envy. Yet we have not evolved methods to resolve difficult questions through reason and dialogue.

We waste far too much energy on futile debates and street demonstrations. There is no reason why we have not replaced the land acquisition act of the British period with a more balanced one that takes note of present conditions.

Lots of land has been acquired by the government from poor people at very low compensation and to make matters worse the monies are not paid promptly. In some coal mining projects, the same group of people have been uprooted more than once.

Some forty years ago, India celebrated when a new dam, steel plant, power plant, fertilizer plant, or a canal system was built. Now we seem to celebrate every time a steel plant, aluminum plant, or power plant is stopped.

Let us look at our civilized neighbor – China. They take pride in the fact that they have built the biggest dam across the Yangtse, the Beijing-Lhasa railway, the Beijing-Shanghai fast train (1300 km in 5 hours), and the longest bridge of 36 km between their main land and an island and so forth.
On India not meeting its energy needs fast enough:

Dr. Srinivasan: Not only is the total quantity small, the ore concentration is also low, extraction too is more costly in India than in Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, and some countries of Africa.

Our resources are in Jharkhand, Meghalaya, Andhra Pradesh, and a smaller one in Karnataka. We started mining activities in Jharkhand in the late 1960’s. We are in the process of constructing a mine in Andhra Pradesh. In Meghalaya, we are facing difficulties in opening the mines due to tribal customs on ownership of lands. Efforts are being made to overcome the problem. In Karnataka, mining is due to commence soon.

India’s electricity generating capacity has been growing over the years, mostly coal-based and hydro, with some contribution from gas and small contributions from nuclear and wind. India and China both had an installed capacity of about 2000 MW in 1950, but India is struggling to reach 200,000 MW and China has already surpassed 800,000 MW.

Some studies relating to the energy needs of India by 2052 show that the electricity requirement could be about 1300 GW. This could be 40 percent coal-based, using clean coal technologies, 40 percent nuclear, and 20 percent renewable.

We may note that at present France is producing 75 to 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants. In Korea it is 40 percent. Japan has 30 percent from nuclear, though what it will be in future in the context of Fukushima is uncertain. The US has 20 percent nuclear on a rather large overall capacity and has a big contribution from gas (lately shale gas).

China has the largest generation capacity, after the US. At present, a large percent is coal-based. China’s carbon emissions have exceeded that of the US, even though on a per capita basis, it is about one-fourth. China has the biggest nuclear plant construction program at present, and while they will undoubtedly review their safety practices in the light of the Japanese experience, they will probably continue to develop nuclear power in a big way.
On India’s status as a nuclear power:

Dr. Srinivasan: The Pokhran II nuclear weapon tests of 1998 conferred on India the status of a de-facto nuclear weapon power, outside of the original five – the US, the UK, France, China, and Russia.

At present India has 20 operating nuclear power units, the others who have more than 20 are the US, France, Japan, Russia, and South Korea.

Homi Bhabha, the father of India’s nuclear program, entrusted the challenging task of building a reprocessing plant to Homi Sethna. The crowning achievement of Sethna’s remarkable career was the Pokhran I test of 18 May 1974 when India demonstrated its ability to conduct a nuclear explosion.

Following this test, the US, Canada, and some other countries embargoed supply of materials or equipment required for India’s nuclear program. This was a major challenge and resulted in delays in building nuclear power stations, heavy water plants and fuel fabricating facilities, and in research and development projects.

The forced isolation led to creation of wide ranging capabilities by Indian industries which geared up to supply all the materials and equipment from within the country.
India’s latest nuclear projects:

Dr. Srinivasan: Although India had 20 nuclear power units under operation, the total nuclear power capacity is small because most of the units had a capacity of 220 MW. The Tarapur 3 and 4 units, built to our own designs, were the largest at present, at 540 MW.

In the next couple of months, we will start our first 1000 MW nuclear plant at Kudankulam, Tamilnadu, built with Russian cooperation. A second such plant will enter in to service next year. In the past year or so, we have started construction of four reactors of 700 MW capacity of our own design, two at Kakrapara (Gujarat), and two at Rawatbhatta (Rajasthan).

We expect to build some more 700 MW reactors, of this standard design, at some new sites in Madhya Pradesh and Haryana and possibly as extension at Kaiga (Karnataka).

The Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) of 500 MW capacity at Kalpakkam in Tamil Nadu is in an advanced stage of construction and is expected to be ready to receive fuel by the end of 2012. This will be our first major step in the second stage of the three stage Indian nuclear program. This will be followed by four more 500 MW FBRs, two to be located at Kalpakkam (near Chennai), and two at another site.

This program is currently the most important breeder reactor program anywhere in the world. We are building an integrated reprocessing facility, a fuel refabrication facility and a waste immobilization facility at Kalpakkam. Such a complex will ensure that the spent fuel does not have to be transported out of site and the recycle activities are all carried at one site only, thus ensuring high level of safety.

To initiate the third stage of the program, nuclear scientists in India have designed an Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) of 300 MW capacity which can be fueled with thorium. This reactor may go in to operation by 2017 and will probably be the first large reactor using thorium, anywhere in the world.
On the use of thorium in Indian nuclear reactors:

Dr. Srinivasan: Many people in India have asked why India is not speeding up the use of thorium as a fuel in Indian nuclear reactors. The reason is that thorium by itself is not a nuclear fuel, It is called a fertile material. We need plutonium, uranium-235, or uranium-233 to start a reactor using thorium. In a reactor, thorium gets converted in to uranium-233, which is a nuclear fuel.

Although India will build thorium-based reactors in the decade of 2020, significant numbers of such reactors can be built only after 2030.

It is important to have a large capacity of fast breeder reactors so that adequate quantity of plutonium is available to start the thorium systems.
On foreign vs. locally made nuclear reactors:

Dr. Srinivasan: Some may wonder why India should import nuclear power plants when the country is already building a number of them indigenously.

We have hitherto built small reactors (220 MW and 540 MW) and now we are standardizing a size of 700 MW. India-designed reactors using heavy water require a small amount of fresh fuel to be loaded into the reactor every day and an equivalent amount of spent fuel to be taken out of the reactor daily. We have evolved satisfactory equipment and procedures for doing this safely.

In contrast, Light Water Reactors (LWR) used in US, France, Japan, Russia, and Korea have an output of 1000 to 1650 MW and need to be loaded with fresh fuel only once in twelve or eighteen months. The fuel is low enriched uranium. Some 80 percent of all nuclear power plant in the world are LWRs.

India is in an advanced stage of negotiations with Russia to build more reactors at Kudankulam, which can accommodate four more units in addition to the first two, and which are now in an advanced stage of execution.

We are negotiating with France to build six 1650 MW reactors, in a phased manner, at Jaitapur, near Ratnagiri in Maharashtra. We are also discussing with the American reactor builders, Westinghouse and General Electric, regarding constructing reactors of their design at two coastal sites, one in Gujarat and another in Andhra Pradesh. These discussions are less advanced than is the case with Russia and France.

India intends to import some 20,000 to 30,000 MW of Light Water reactors from Russia, France, and the US in the time period from now to 2030. India would like to have a total nuclear capacity of 50,000 to 60,000 MW by 2030.

So we will continue to build more PHWRs (pressurized heavy water reactors) of our own design with some of them using imported natural uranium.

We will no doubt intensify exploration for uranium in India and maximize local production. We also expect to acquire stake in developing uranium reserves in friendly countries and thus increase the total quantity of uranium available for our program.
On Japan’s Fukushima accident and the future of nuclear power:

Dr. Srinivasan: It could take as long as 10 years to decontaminate the site. It may take up to 20 years to clean up Fukushima city. The four units (1 to 4) of Daiichi are naturally a write-off.

Around that time, Japanese earth scientists found out that a number of tsunami of great height, up to 30 meters or more had earlier struck the coast of Japan. Unfortunately, Tokyo Electric Power Company dismissed these warnings.

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel announced that Germany, which produces about 25 percent of its electricity from nuclear, would phase out its nuclear units by 2022. It is hoping to increase renewables like wind and solar, and to invest heavily on conservation.

Italy and Switzerland announced that they would shelve plans to embark on new nuclear units. But there are many countries with sizeable number of nuclear units and shutting them down is simply not an option.

The US, France, Korea, and Russia have a large number of nuclear units which supply a good proportion of electricity. China and India are planning to add nuclear capacity rapidly.
Should India do away with nuclear energy?

Dr. Srinivasan: What we need is to learn all the lessons from Fukushima and make our reactors safer and more reliable. It is important that public confidence which has been shaken is restored by making the presently operating ones and those to be built in the future as safe as humanly possible.

A question may arise: “If Germany can do without nuclear energy, why should India need it?” Also, it is possible that Japan which has 54 nuclear reactors may decide on phasing out nuclear energy.

Japan has a special problem which is that most of Japan is visited by severe earthquakes. Also on the eastern coast, they have active seismic epicenters which when erupted may release severe tsunami waves.

Fortunately, most of India has low seismic activity compared to Japan. All Indian sites have a seismic intensity less than seven on the Richter scale – an intensity one hundredth of the earthquake that hit Fukushima, which is very important to bear this in mind.

Moreover, industrial societies like Germany, Japan, US, and others have already built up their infrastructure, which is energy intensive. So now they can manage to reduce their energy consumption and possibly face the future with renewable and conservation.

Developing countries like India and China, with large populations and large developmental deficits to be made good, will need to use nuclear energy, but of course with all safety measures taken, and under strict regulation.
On the Jaitapur controversy:

About the controversial French-aided plans to construct nuclear power plants at Jaitapur in Maharashtra, Dr. Srinivasan said he would like to share with this audience that he was responsible for selecting this site, following a visit in 1984.

Dr. Srinivasan: There is a high table land some 20 to 30 meters above the sea level and there was no cultivation in that piece of land. Of course grass grows there and is harvested for fodder. There were no dwellings located on the land. Hence this is an ideal site.

There would be no effluents which could affect the mango orchards or the fishing activity. We have actual experience at Tarapur and Kalpakkam and at neither of these places has there been an adverse impact on marine life. Similarly, Kakrapar (Gujarat) and Kaiga (Karnataka) have shown that the ecology of the area is unaffected. The question of compensation for lands that are acquired is a matter that has to be decided by the state government.

While we may fully support wind and solar options, they simply will be inadequate or uneconomic compared to nuclear power. Sometimes, our environmental activists consider all of us involved in industrial activities as ‘anti-national people’ and confer on themselves all patriotism.

As a person who has spent some five and a half decades in developing nuclear power under difficult conditions, I consider this value judgment of our environmental activists completely unacceptable.

——

Copyright: Asian Scientist Magazine.
Disclaimer: This article does not necessarily reflect the views of AsianScientist or its staff.

http://www.asianscientist.com/features/m-r-srinivasan-former-chairman-indian-atomic-energy-comission-nehru-centre/

Monday, 17 February 2014

Modern human genomes reveal our inner Neanderthal

Nature | News

Cross-breeding boosted Homo sapiens' ability to cope with cool climates, but the hybrids may have had trouble breeding.

29 January 2014

Artist's impression by S. Plailly/E. Daynes/SPL

Neanderthals made beneficial contributions to the genomes of many modern humans.

Sex with Neanderthals had its ups and its downs. Cross-breeding may have given modern humans genes useful for coping with climates colder than Africa's, but the hybrid offspring probably suffered from significant fertility problems.

Those conclusions come from two papers published today in Science1 and Nature2, which identify the slices of the genome that contemporary humans inherited from Neanderthals, the stocky hunter-gatherers that went extinct around 30,000 years ago.

Homo sapiens and Neanderthals share a common ancestor that probably lived in Africa more than half a million years ago. The ancestors of Neanderthals were the first to move to Europe and Asia while the modern-human lineage stayed in Africa. But after modern humans began to leave Africa less than 100,000 years ago, they interbred with the Neanderthals who had settled on a range stretching from Western Europe to Siberia.

“These were bits of the genomes that had not seen each other for half a million years,” says David Reich, a population geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, who led the Nature study along with colleague Sriram Sankararaman. “That’s something that doesn’t happen in human populations today.”

The magic number

Genome sequences harvested from Neanderthal bones have previously confirmed that the two groups mated, and that about 2% of the genomes of people who descend from Europeans, Asians and other non-Africans is Neanderthal3, 4. The Neanderthal contributions are peppered across the genome, and different people have different Neanderthal genes.

Research has indicated that some of these genes are involved in functions such as battling infections5, 6 and coping with ultraviolet radiation7. But the latest studies are the first to identify a large proportion of the genome segments that humans inherited from Neanderthals.

Both teams developed computational methods to identify segments of the human genome that were likely to have originated hundreds of thousands of years in the past, yet entered the human gene pool far more recently. The teams then checked whether or not these segments were present in the actual Neanderthal genome sequence to come up with a catalog of Neanderthal genes in humans.

Joshua Akey, a population geneticist at the University of Washington in Seattle who wrote the Science paper with colleague Benjamin Vernot, says that his team found about one-fifth of a Neanderthal genome spread across the publicly available genomes of 665 living Europeans and East Asians. Reich and his team estimate that they could put together about 40% of the Neanderthal genome from the sequences of 1,004 living people that they studied.

The teams looked for Neanderthal genes that were especially common in contemporary humans, a sign that the genes were useful to their new owners. Both groups identified a series of genes involved in the inner workings of cells called keratinocytes, which make up most of the outer layer of human skin and produce hair.

“It’s tempting to speculate that Neanderthals were already adapted to colder environments in Eurasia” and that these genes helped modern humans to cope after they arrived from Africa, says Reich. Akey points out that the skin helps to mediate moisture loss and protect against pathogens, and Neanderthal genes that were already adapted to life in Europe and Asia would be helpful to H. sapiens in its new environment. These hypotheses are speculative, the researchers say, and they agree that follow-up studies will be needed to determine how Neanderthal keratinocyte genes benefited modern humans.

Both studies also discovered vast numbers of Neanderthal genes that none of the contemporary humans carried. “We find these gigantic holes in the human genomes where there are no surviving Neanderthal lineages,” says Akey. This is a strong indication that the genes were harmful to human–Neanderthal hybrids and their descendants, and were purged as the descendants continued to mate. “Most of these variations were removed in a couple of dozen generations,” Reich says.

Akey’s team found that one large chunk of modern-human genome that bears no Neanderthal contributions is the one that encompasses the gene FOXP2, which is involved in speech in humans.

Mixed messages

Reich’s team, meanwhile, discovered that today's humans tend to have few of the Neanderthal genes that are activated in the testes or located on the X chromosome. In organisms such as fruitflies, such patterns are hallmarks of hybrid sterility, indicating that two populations are too distantly related to breed successfully. Modern humans and Neanderthals “were at the edge of biological compatibility”, Reich concludes, and their hybrids probably suffered high rates of infertility.

“Neanderthals aren’t around, so you can’t do a mating experiment,” says Daven Presgraves, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Rochester in New York. But the patterns that Reich’s team noticed are exactly what you would expect if their hybrids suffered from reduced fertility, he adds.

However, Presgraves was surprised that modern humans and Neanderthals, separated by only tens of thousands of generations, would already show signs biological incompatibility. Animals such as fruitflies typically need to be separated for much longer to evolve naturally into distinct species, he says.

Sarah Tishkoff, a population geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, says that the studies rank as “some of the most exciting papers I’ve seen”. She adds that the work hints at the possibility of studying ancient-human genomes gleaned not from bones but from the DNA of contemporary populations. 

Such studies could be especially revealing in Africa (see 'African genes tracked back'). There, well-preserved samples of ancient DNA are scarce, and yet genome studies of today's inhabitants of the continent8 hints that although ancient Africans did not mingle with Neanderthals they may have interbred with other now-extinct groups. “We really need to be able to apply these methods to African populations,” says Tishkoff. “Just imagine what we’re going to find there.”

Nature
doi:10.1038/nature.2014.14615

References

  1. Vernot, B. & Akey, J. M. Science http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1245938 (2014).

    Show context
  2. Sankararaman, S. et al. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12961 (2014).

    Show context
  3. Green, R. E. et al. Science 328, 710–722 (2010).

    Show context
  4. Prüfer, K. et al. Nature 505, 43–49 (2014).

    Show context
  5. Abi-Rached, L. et al. Science 334, 89–94 (2011).

    Show context
  6. Mendez, F. L., Watkins, J. C. & Hammer, M. F. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 91, 265–274 (2012).

    Show context
  7. Ding, Q., Hu, Y., Xu, S., Wang, J. & Jin, L. Mol. Biol. Evol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst260 (2013).

    Show context

  8. Lachance, J. et al. Cell 150, 457–469 (2012).

    Show context

Related stories and links

From nature.com