Slashdot Mirror


Tibetans Inherited High-Altitude Gene From Ancient Human

sciencehabit writes A "superathlete" gene that helps Sherpas and other Tibetans breathe easy at high altitudes was inherited from an ancient species of human. That's the conclusion of a new study, which finds that the gene variant came from people known as Denisovans, who went extinct soon after they mated with the ancestors of Europeans and Asians about 40,000 years ago. This is the first time a version of a gene acquired from interbreeding with another type of human has been shown to help modern humans adapt to their environment.

21 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. Helpful Genes by alzoron · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is the first time a version of a gene acquired from interbreeding with another type of human has been shown to help modern humans adapt to their environment.

    I'd have to say the genes for red hair were pretty damn helpful in making some of our women really attractive.

    1. Re:Helpful Genes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      and crazy nutjobs.

    2. Re:Helpful Genes by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      yeah, it's the same gene.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:Helpful Genes by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Funny

      yeah, it's the same gene.

      My wife's standing behind me with an icepick and wants me to say "No it's not"

    4. Re:Helpful Genes by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Who is to say some of the Neanderthal genes that have been found in humans are not "helpful"? How are they measuring "helpful adaptation"? Perhaps they mean the high-altitude features are clearly helpful, while the benefits of others are not known yet. (Maybe some of the top football players are the top because of Neanderthal genes.)

      A significant number of those Neanderthal and Denisovan genes are thought to be very helpful. For example Neanderthal genes are thought to play an important part in the way skin works in modern Europeans/Asians/Native Americans/Australians (cold climate tolerance, resistance to some diseases, synthesis of vitamins). However, having strong suspicions that this is the case because a whole bunch of skin related DNA in these populations seems to have come from Neanderthals and Denisovians and suspecting that this DNA is important because Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA seems to have been 'selected out' of some other parts of the genome but is still there in the skin related regions of the genome is one thing. Proving it scientifically is a whole other matter. These guys simply managed to become the first to prove in a scientifically rigorous way the helpfulness of one of the numerous bits of Neanderthal/Denisovan DNA suspected to be beneficial. Now let's hope this stands up to peer review.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    5. Re:Helpful Genes by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      When Homo sapiens show up, they've got an entirely new technology- the atlatl, or spear-thrower.

      I believe these are relatively recent, perhaps after the Neanderthal's time. It's more likely Sapiens went after smaller animals like rabbits, and were scavengers, stealing game from wolves, hyena's, cougars, etc. using relatively weak spears or rocks.

      Going after big game directly was probably not a common option at the time for Sapiens. Neanderthals specialized in big game, and this includes being able to be trampled and live.

      Sapiens were omnivores, eating plants, insects, small animals, and big animals stolen from pack hunting animals. (There is evidence Neanderthals also ate variety, but big game was probably their main food.)

      When Homo sapiens show up in Eurasia, we see the disappearance of mammoths, wooly rhinos, Irish elk, etc.

      But that's relatively recent, when wide-range trade of better hunting materials and proto-civilization increased Sapien populations. It's the (later) larger populations and trading ability of humans that was the culprit.

      Plus with a larger population, there's more likely to be humans who take the risk of hunting big game due to arrogance or not having other choices during droughts. If faced with starvation and death, I'd try to hunt a mammoth myself now, if they were around. I'd probably die trying, but many other fellow starvers would also try.

      Large populations = greater mayhem during bad times.

  2. Really bad explanation of the evolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The explanation of the evolution is terrible. If the gene was inherited from a "Denisovans" then that Denisovan didn't go extinct. His descendents are still among us. The gene did not spread through the population; the people who had the gene survived and people without the gene disappeared leaving more space for those survivors.

    1. Re:Really bad explanation of the evolution. by dmbasso · · Score: 2

      The explanation of the evolution is terrible. If the gene was inherited from a "Denisovans" then that Denisovan didn't go extinct. His descendents are still among us. The gene did not spread through the population; the people who had the gene survived and people without the gene disappeared leaving more space for those survivors.

      Yes, the "people with the gene" were called Denisovans, they "disappeared", therefore they did go extinct. It seems you don't follow the logic of your own statements.

      And just to make it even more clear: suppose I make dog with the tomato gene for photosynthesis (a solar powered dog, how cool is that), then kill every single tomato plant in the world with some Monsanto shit. It doesn't matter that my glorious green power efficient dog would carry the tomato gene... tomatos would still have gone extinct.

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
  3. Neandertals and light skin by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is another obvious point in history where such a gene transfer could have occurred. European conditions favour light skin, and Neandertals had been hanging out there for some tens of thousands of years before modern humans turned up and so had evolved light skin. These newcomers, having recent ancestry in Africa, were probably dark skinned. Interbreeding could easily have introduced the beneficial-to-European-conditions light skin mutations into the modern population.

    My memory of the literature (which I have followed just a little bit, not closely) is that this did not happen - genetic analysis shows that modern Europeans and Neandertals acquired light skin through different mutations. However, Wikipedia says this is still under debate.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    1. Re:Neandertals and light skin by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 2

      Immune system genes are often under balancing selection - i.e. the rarest alleles are favoured (until, due to this favouring, they cease to be rarest, then other alleles are favoured.) An infusion of new different alleles from Neandertals could be favoured simply because they are different, not because they are evolved to European conditions.

      Testing between these hypotheses seems difficult. The 'balancing selection' hypothesis predicts that the genes will readily spread back into Africa, whereas the 'evolved for European conditions' predicts they will not. The problem is that you need some neutral mutations that arose in Europe at the same time as a 'control' for comparison purposes. I'm not sure how to identify such mutations, but I expect it could be done.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  4. Re:Breeding with another humam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    And if you're on /., you are NOT an alpha. Lol.

    Look, every time I come here, someone says "fuck beta." I figure it's the best shot I have.

  5. Were Denisovans really a DIFFERENT SPECIES? by mi · · Score: 2

    inherited from an ancient species of human

    One of the definitions of "species" states, that if two can breed and produce viable offspring (unlike, say, donkey and horse or lion and tiger, which produce sterile hybrids), then they are the same species...

    Why are Denisovans considered different species, rather than simply a different race (or breed?) of the same Homo Sapiens?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Were Denisovans really a DIFFERENT SPECIES? by Rinikusu · · Score: 2

      That's an outdated definition. Species is flexible in that regards.

      Species A can breed with Species B and Species B can breed with Species C but species A can't breed with Species C. (and by breed, I mean produce fertile offspring). Rut Roh.

      Remember that species is also a convenient moniker for what something is/was at a particular moment in time. Given enough time and isolation, perhaps our different human races could diverge enough to have similar issues with breeding. For Denisovans, they remained isolated enough to condense their gene pool (and add their own mutations) to be considered a distinct species, but still capable of interbreeding back into the main branch, so to speak. Hrm, there's gotta be a git analogy here that is too early for me to formulate.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    2. Re:Were Denisovans really a DIFFERENT SPECIES? by radtea · · Score: 2

      Why are Denisovans considered different species, rather than simply a different race (or breed?) of the same Homo Sapiens?

      "Variety" is probably a better word than "race" or "species". The "biological species concept" is extremely poorly defined, which is a bit of an embarrassment for a field largely based on a book called "The Origin of Species".

      Like all concepts, the boundaries of a "species" are fuzzy, and the only really precise dividing line is the attention of the knowing subject. In many cases this is unprobelmatic: almost any knowing subject looking at the same population would draw the edges between species in the same way. There are, however, many cases where different people will draw different edges for different purposes.

      Again: this is no different from any other concept, although people who don't get out much will often insist that the edges they choose to draw by an act of selective attention are "real" and everyone else's are "wrong".

      In the extreme case, in the plant world, ubiquitous hybridization results in populations that are practically all genetically unique individuals, and the species concept breaks down entirely.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  6. Re:Well, that proves it! by itzly · · Score: 2

    Only if accompanied by a suitable number of witty comments.

  7. Not sure if joking or stupid by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

    How long have the sherpas been up there carrying shit for rich European thrill seekers?

    Atmospheric pressure, and hence oxygen content, at the height Tibetans have lived naturally for thousands of years is a bit over half that of sea-level. This story has nothing to do with climbing Everest.

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  8. Re:Breeding with another humam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd add a "fourth step": understand that different women want different things - that women will typically decide whether to wear their good underwear (i.e. brand new Victoria's Secret lace versus worn out cotton granny panties) before they even go on the date with you - that they''ve already decided the "outcome" of the date before they've even spent time with you.

    Some women, because of who they are, want a long hard night in the bedroom and as long as you come across as reasonably nice and not totally psycho then you're in. Other women, again because of who they are, just don't happen to want that and no matter how smooth you are you're not going to get anywhere. In short, it's not about you - it's about them. It's not about how great you are - whether you're "alpha" or whatever. It's about getting to know lots of different women until you eventually find one who wants the same thing you do.

    And, yes, if what you want is mainly time in the bedrrom there are women who want that, too. But you mama may not approve of such women. So you may have to choose between making your mama happy and making yourself happy.

    Anyway, there isn't some single perfect woman that all the men in the world are competing for - by trying to be more "alpha" or whatever. There's lots of different women in the world (billions, in fact) and the key is to find a woman that's a good match for you.

  9. Re:Breeding with another humam? by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 2

    Hehe. I think the "alpha" thing is and isn't a myth. You're right there's a certain type of woman that appeals to and some it doesn't.

    But at the same time, a lot of it is conditioning. All their lives, women are taught they are sluts if they initiate. So they will go up right next to you in the bar, flash their eyelashes, and hope you start.

    So if you are interested in getting with women, you do have to man up and learn to be the one who comes over and starts the conversation. Doesn't have to be fancy, can just be "hi," but as a man you must initiate.

  10. Re:Great by mcvos · · Score: 2

    Ku-Klux-Klan were Democrats, not Republicans.

    They certainly were, until FDR and later LBJ wanted to turn the Democrats into the civil rights party, and distanced the party from the racist southern democrats, after which Nixon decided that the Republicans should appeal to those southern former-democrats in order to gain more votes, and the parties basically switched position on this issue.

  11. Re:Great by RoccamOccam · · Score: 2

    The democrats of the day were the conservatives.

    Really? Robert Byrd had been an "Exalted Cyclops" in the Ku Klux Klan, yet still he was a Democrat Senator until his death in 2010. Byrd was a liberal and a great favorite of the Democrats.

    Apparently, in 1944, Byrd wrote a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo refusing to join the military because he might have to serve alongside “race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wild.”

  12. Re:Breeding with another humam? by QilessQi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not if they are alpha males.
    Face it, human females have mate choice, and they only want to be with alphas. So the alphas get a ton of pussy and most males get none. The females, even ugly ones, typically can easily get laid, but men don't have this luxury.

    First of all, a preferable term for "human females" is "women". Or, better still, "people". If you wan't to have a relationship with someone -- even if it's a purely physical relationship -- you're better off by not referring to them by species and gender as though you were an entomologist and they were some exotic variety of insect. Men are people. Women are people. And people have minds, souls, desires, and complexities.

    Some people (of either gender) are primarily interested in physical relationships at this point in their lives, and some aren't. Some people are swayed by PUA strategies like negging, and some aren't. Most people, I would guess, want a sexual or romantic partner that they find physically attractive and enjoyable to be with... but those are highly variable qualities. You'd be amazed at what some people do and don't find attractive, when you scratch the surface. For example, sometimes a very wealthy and physically attractive person can immediately turn off a potential partner forever just by having a bitter personality or prejudiced attitudes.

    If you're one of those people who's on a low end of the bell-shaped curve of attractiveness when it comes to looks, or height, or chest size, or hair, or wealth, or whatever it is you think would make you attractive to the people you'd like to date or sleep with... yeah, that sucks. I feel for you. Most of us have been there. 50% of the population is below-average by definition, and most of us are not media stars.

    But your first step out of that hole is to stop thinking about how to become an "alpha" (whatever the heck you think that is) or lamenting that you aren't one. If you seriously want things to change, you have to find ways to relate to people honestly, regardless of their gender. You have to stop thinking of other people as your competitors or enemies -- especially if those people are ones you want to be in a relationship with.

    Because those ugly thoughts will come out eventually. People have spent hundreds of thousands of years evolving finely-honed unconscious detectors for creepy behavior. And you don't want to be That Guy. Nobody likes That Guy.