Slashdot Mirror
Humans Having Sex With Neanderthals Gave Us Protection Against Ancient Epidemics (sciencealert.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ScienceAlert: A new study argues that we have Neanderthals to thank for helping us cope with the viral tides we encountered as we marched around the globe. Stanford University researchers have identified DNA sequences that evolved in our ancient cousins can produce antivirus proteins, which more than likely gave some human populations the edge they needed to survive. Roughly 1 percent of our genome's coding was written in Neanderthal populations. But this is a broad average -- many families with African ancestry have zero, for instance, while other populations boast as much as 2 percent or more. So the question is how much of this difference comes down to the random drift of DNA being passed on around the globe, and how much is due to natural selection giving those with Neanderthal genes an advantage?
To build a case one way or another, the Stanford researchers put together a list of just over 4,500 virus-interacting proteins (VIP) made by our genome. These were all matched against a database of Neanderthal DNA that could be found in modern East Asian and European human populations, providing 152 VIP genes shared by both groups of human. Interestingly, all of these VIP genes were of a variety that interacted with RNA viruses -- pathogens that include influenza A, hepatitis C, and HIV. This isn't to say these viruses were problems for ancient humans, but rather that similar RNA viruses were more than likely prevalent enough to shape our evolution. The discovery supports a view of genetic exchange described as the 'poison-antidote' model.
To build a case one way or another, the Stanford researchers put together a list of just over 4,500 virus-interacting proteins (VIP) made by our genome. These were all matched against a database of Neanderthal DNA that could be found in modern East Asian and European human populations, providing 152 VIP genes shared by both groups of human. Interestingly, all of these VIP genes were of a variety that interacted with RNA viruses -- pathogens that include influenza A, hepatitis C, and HIV. This isn't to say these viruses were problems for ancient humans, but rather that similar RNA viruses were more than likely prevalent enough to shape our evolution. The discovery supports a view of genetic exchange described as the 'poison-antidote' model.
Nah, there's no way this is going to be controversial. ;)
Ezekiel 23:20
Some homo sapiens sapiens couldn't get a date some evening, but there was always their Neanderthal friend for evenings like that
Bruce Perens.
she decided to marry me.
...this is pretty interesting in that it demonstrates the value of genetic diversity in helping humans evolve survival mechanisms at the genetic level. We've long known that viral imprinting bestows resistance to certain those viruses, but zooming this out to a more macro level is very fascinating.
You may now continue with the school-yard level jokes....
'Having sex' didn't give people protection, that is just poor use of language. The offspring from Interbreeding would have the benefit greater genetic diversity.
No, homo sapiens met Denisovans in Indonesia, on the path out of Africa.
This conveyed superior capacity for low temperatures and low oxygen.
Humans only met Neanderthals 55,000-60,000 years ago.
Many hybrids, such as those in the Red Deer Cave, went extinct.
There is no superiority. Stronger immune systems are why Europeans suffer from far more severe autoimmune disorders, conditions barely known in Africa.
It's always a trade-off. We are all specialists, adapted to local needs, as always happens with evolution.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Nobody is claiming they're superior genes. They offer a different trade-off (greater cancer risk, greater autoimmune disease risk in exchange for a lower risk from a selection of viruses and bacteria).
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I keep finding this a weird thing to say; obviously, us and Neanderthals procreated with great success. Therefore we have been the same species, we just followed different migratory paths at different times and later merged again (probably with all kinds of conflicts because that's human nature). "Humans having sex with Neanderthals" thus makes no sense. It's as odd as saying "humans having sex with Caucasians". It makes no sense because we are are the same species. We may not all be Neanderthals like we're not all Caucasian or Asian but we probably all are Congoid. And we definitely are all humans. And so were Neanderthals. Let's stop this weird display phrenology and just call Neanderthals what they were: an interesting group of pretty plain humans.
(Or am I missing something here?)
0x or or snor perron?!
It has been long known that breeding (having kids) with those distantly related to you is likely to produce healthier offspring. So: if you want healthy kids: choose a partner who has a different ancestry to you -- domeone of a different race is an easy way of doing it. Having said that what I have said is simplistic, not everyone has equally ''good'' genes, so choosing someone who is: healthy, strong, intelligent, ... is also good -- these are the characteristics that many find attractive anyway. The mating game is largely about producing healthy kids - even if we do not realise it.
Nonsense. ... what a brain dead idea.
Immune system traits are not trade offs
TANSTAAFL applies to evolution too, and even more so than most other situations.
We only have around 30,000 genes, which are largely multi-purpose and used in combination with other genes.
Because the gene itself has multiple effects, any genetic mutation is also likely to have more than one effect. Given that any change is far more likely to be for the worse than for the better, this means that any good change is often linked with one or more bad changes too. For the mutation to survive and propagate, the good change has to outweigh the bad change in that particular environment.
The most commonly cited mutation that has multiple effects, both good and bad, is sickle cell anaemia, where an affected individual also has high resistance to malaria. That trade-off is why sickle cell anaemia has not been either bred out or become ubiquitous.
There are others, like the HLA-B27 antigen which not only drives up the risk of conditions like Ankylosing Spondylitis, but also increases the resistance to influenza type A, and has a small but significant correlation with slower progression of HIV.
At some point in the past, the tradeoffs must have been good for the population where this antigen is most prevalent.