Talk:Neanderthal genome project

Chromosome number

Does anyone know the chromosome number for Neanderthals? 86.176.188.78 (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

We do not have preserved tissues from Neanderthals to know for sure what their chromosome number was. But because they are the same species as we are (Homo sapiens), it is very likely their chromosome number was the same as ours.----

Likely is not good enough. Why? Primates have 48 chromosomes. Humans have 46. Were Neanderthals an extension or evolved form of primate, or were they humans? Archaic history hints that 'gods' (interstellar space travellers) made us human by hybridization and that action made humans 'chosen' to carry their genes (a process that leaps the hurdle of a missing link). I'd think science would be making more of an effort to see why this major discrepancy exists seeing that human cross-breeding with Neanderthals has occurred (and the results were always more human). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almas_(cryptozoology) and http://cryptozoo.monstrous.com/zana.htm for a relatively recent example, and who can say how many still exist roaming the wilds of the world. 67.225.52.80 (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Frankly not so academic

"Archaic history hints that interstellar space travellers made us human by hybridization"

Uhh... space aliens that evolved on another planet are so much like us that they can mate with us and combine DNA? Yeah. Okay. I believe that, particularly since Earth Girls are Easy.

I think you should put this in the article. I'm sure nobody would object.

--Verdana♥Bøld 22:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"Criticism" and "History" sections

Much of this article is still material added during the early phase of the project. Most of the "criticism" stuff is obsolede, or at least only of historical interest. Such "criticism" as seems relevant should be put into the "history" section. Otoh, the publication of the draft should be moved out of the history section, as these is a project result, not project history. It can be moved into "history" once they publish a definite sequence. --dab (𒁳) 10:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if its obsolete. It is probably still relevant as criticism of the earlier sections of DNA the project released reports on.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

People were still talking about this and debating at a May 2010 forum on computational biology and bioinformatics, so although it seems as if most of the researchers weigh in on one side of the debate, it isn't "history" just yet and there is still a small, but significant, group that continues to question the results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.70.214.104 (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Relation to Autism

I've copied the following from a section I made on the "Heritability of Autism" page. My only request is that you read before you delete:

The Journal of Evolutionary Psychology just published a paper that supports the hypothesis that the confirmed neanderthal admixture event(s) provided cognitive variations that were subsequently selected for, sometimes causing a locus of deleterious recombinations in the genomes of children with parents who selected one another for those characteristics: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP09207238.pdf

• "People on the autism spectrum are conceptualized here as ecologically competent individuals that could have been adept at learning and implementing hunting and gathering skills in the ancestral environment."
• "The autism continuum could represent a remnant of genetic introgression that took place before humans were the lone species in our genus. Perhaps some of the genes for autism evolved not in our direct ancestral line but in a solitary subspecies which later merged genetically with our line of descent through gene flow."
• "Many of the behavioral and cognitive tendencies that autistic individuals exhibit are viewed here as adaptations that would have complemented a solitary lifestyle. For example, the obsessive, repetitive and systemizing tendencies in autism, which can be mistakenly applied toward activities such as block stacking today, may have been focused by hunger and thirst toward successful food procurement in the ancestral past. Both solitary mammals and autistic individuals are low on measures of gregariousness, socialization, direct gazing, eye contact, facial expression, facial recognition, emotional engagement, affiliative need and other social behaviors. The evolution of the neurological tendencies in solitary species that predispose them toward being introverted and reclusive may hold important clues for the evolution of the autism spectrum and the natural selection of autism genes."
• "This article emphasizes that individuals on the autism spectrum may have only been partially solitary, that natural selection may have only favored subclinical autistic traits and that the most severe cases of autism may be due to assortative mating. "
• "Unfortunately, the genetics, molecular biology and neuroscience of autism are still, relative to many other neurological disorders, shrouded with uncertainty due to their highly complex nature (O’Roak and State, 2008)."
• "A portion of this complexity and uncertainty arises from the relatively large number of distinct susceptibility genes that have been identified, many of which can be completely absent even in pronounced autism (Freitag, 2007). This genetic heterogeneity may be responsible for the clinical heterogeneity..."
• "1. isolated pockets of humans can remain reproductively insulated for long enough to evolve discrepant ecological strategies; 2. such populations can quickly (less than 40,000 years in the South American and Asian pygmies; Cavalli-Sforza, 1986) develop features that vary markedly from the norm; 3. these traits can involve multiple genes at different loci; and 4. interbreeding can result in either continuous or polymorphic variation in subsequent generations. It is interesting to note that, as these indigenous people become assimilated into other gene pools, the genes for short stature will persist and may affect phenotypic variability in sporadic and unpredictable ways for a long time to come."
• "Like other polygenic, continuous traits, the mutations responsible for autism could have been maintained by “environmental heterogeneity,” a form of balancing selection. In other words, the genes responsible for autism may have remained in our gene pool because as social-environmental conditions fluctuated in the past, discrepant genetic polymorphisms, or “multiple alternate alleles,” were favored."

Here are some peer reviewed sources that imply a link between the genes garnered via neanderthal admixture and the genes that code for ASDs:

• Brain development after birth differs between Neanderthals and modern humans (2010, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) B]

"The development of cognitive abilities during individual growth is linked to the maturation of the underlying neural circuitry: in humans, major internal brain reorganization has been documented until adolescence, and even subtle alterations of pre- and perinatal brain development have been linked to changes of the neural wiring pattern that affect behavior and cognition [9]. The uniquely modern human pattern of early brain development is particularly interesting in the light of the recent breakthroughs in the Neanderthal genome project [10], which identified genes relevant to cognition that are derived in living humans. We speculate that a shift away from the ancestral pattern of brain development occurring in early Homo sapiens underlies brain reorganization and that the associated cognitive differences made this growth pattern a target for positive selection in modern humans."

• A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome

"Mutations in CADPS2 have been implicated in autism (67), as have mutations in AUTS2 (68)."

• Autism, the Integrations of ‘Difference’ and the Origins of Modern Human Behaviour (McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research)

The fact that the male side of the admixture(s) was/were strictly neanderthal would mean that we share none of their mtDNA. This explains the lack of mtDNA abnormality and the existence of mitochondrial dysfunction in people with ASDs: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2350/12/50

• "the frequent observation of concomitant mitochondrial dysfunction and ASD could be due to nuclear factors influencing mitochondrion functions or to a more complex interplay between the nucleus and the mitochondrion/mtDNA."

The neanderthal haplotype described in this 2011 paper is x-linked: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/01/25/molbev.msr024.full.pdf+html

The abstract finishes by saying: "It indicates a very early admixture between expanding African migrants and Neandertals prior to or very early on the route of the out-of-Africa expansion that led to the successful colonization of the planet." [On a side note: This could also explain the unique, cyclical pattern of brutal invasion, cultural assimilation, and intermarriage that is so common in the written history of human civilization. Evidence of mostly patrilineal migrations among early AMHs is just coming out: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/24/1100723108 "Ancient DNA reveals male diffusion through the Neolithic Mediterranean route" (May 2, 2011)]

More evidence is cited in this wrongplanet thread: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3696657.html#3696657 Slartibartfastibast (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed Intermixing By Genome Mapping Type Groups (The Genographic Project, 23andMe, etc.)

How is this not mentioned? It is proven that loads of people are in fact part-Neanderthal. With it tiny percents, like one of the paragraphs in this page mentions was predicted (1% - 4%). That should be in articles, on this wikipedia page, on other wikipedia pages where it's relevant, etc. So, why are scientists ignoring this research material, and evidence? And, why doesn't it get mention on related wikipedia pages? Even without this evidence, you can clearly see that many people alive today are part-Neanderthal, because they literally have obvious Neanderthal morphology, while of heritage where the Neanderthals were. How is it that after the finding that many people are probably 1-to-4% Neanderthal got followed by BS about how Homo Sapiens Sapiens weren't in the area yet, when the DNA PROVES humans were in the area? This, and other Wikipedia pages are in dire need of correction. As is the outdated dogma many people are teaching in direct defiance of LOADS of scientific evidence. While Wikipedia editors can't do anything about the latter, you CAN do something about inaccuracies on wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.240.244 (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Because this proves homo sapiens are a bunch of psycopaths that exterminated neanderthal individuals in the biggest genocide, with cannibalism included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.30.193.35 (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Eating Neanderthals

They say you are what you eat...

Has anybody looked into the possibility that Neanderthal genes in humans (assuming there actually are any) might result from early humans EATING Neanderthals and not from mating with them? Cro Magnons killing and eating Neanderthals has been verified and was probably common, while the idea of cross breeding is very difficult to believe and in fact James Shreve's "Neanderthal Peace" article flatly stated that there was zero archaeological evidence of it on the planet. Bacterial insertion is a known vector of gene accumulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swolf46 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Humans (some at least) eat quantities of beef, pork, lamb, chicken, turkey and fish without evidence that they have acquired genes from those sources. The process of digestion is quite destructive toward macromolecules like DNA, RNA and protein.24.108.28.165 (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree that it is unlikely Neanderthal DNA in modern day humans is a result of eating Neanderthals, particularly for the reasons stated by IP 24.108.28.165 --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Percentage of shared base pairs

The article claims, as an aside to FINDINGS, that humans share 98.8 % base pairs with the chimpanzee. This number, afaik, results from an older comparision of DNA which did NOT compare on the level of actual base pairs, using that method, the difference is far greater. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project does not make a claim like that, either. Could you please either add a reference to a study that is either recent or specifies the methodology claimed to be used here, or delete the chimpanzee reference as not factual? Thank you. 195.37.190.154 (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Denisova DNA status?

"Analysis of the specimen's nuclear DNA is under way and is expected to clarify whether the find is a distinct species". Relevant cites are dated 2010. Any updates on this? Kortoso (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neanderthal genome project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217175926/http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Green_Complete_Cell_2008.pdf to http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Green_Complete_Cell_2008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

What/whom are they using for their human specimen, exactly?

Ancient homo sapiens from same region? Ancient homo sapiens from elsewhere entirely? Modern local DNA donor? Modern human from elsewhere entirely??

This uneducated layman cringes each time some researcher publishes data like that in the main Neantderthal article in wikedia, and it seems like these new DNA percentages are much the same. Admitting a possible lack of understanding of more complex information, let's just go after stuff like "Males stood 164 to 168 cm (65 to 66 in) and females 152 to 156 cm (60 to 61 in) tall": 1 inch height range, REALLY????

Yet somehow there's a 6 inch difference between just 2 generations in my own family, despite (presumably) far less genetic variation than the Neanderthal race. Take it up a notch, just to females this layman has dated in this lifetime, and there's a *19* inch range (4ft 9in to 6ft 4in)... i gotta wonder if these same "scientists" would, given a skeletal xray or DNA, classify either the 4'9" girl or the 6'4" girl (same ethnicity, same city btw) as the same species, or, heck, if EITHER of them would fall into Homo sapiens at all.

And what % match would their DNA be, I do wonder.

Sloppy sloppy half-azzed research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.67.249.167 (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There's no agreement at this time to perform the move given the article's current content and condition. If a rewrite does indeed occur and the content still warrants a separate page, a new RM can be opened at that time. (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 05:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Neanderthal genome project → Neanderthal genome – The current name was never a 'thing', just one research group's facetious play on the human genome project to describe their effort at acquiring neanderthal genome sequence. Since then there have been at least several additional findings dealing with Neanderthal genome sequencing that were not part of the original effort, and this page would be better dedicated to the topic as a whole rather than focusing on one group's now-dated and more limited initial push. Agricolae (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Dicklyon (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support Several groups are sequencing and studying Neanderthal genome. But moving the page would be insufficient without a re-write and an expansion of the subject in general. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes, but putting the new material under the existing title doesn't work, because the title only applies to that one research group's efforts. (There are larger issues - I am not sure that this all shouldn't be combined with Neanderthal genetics, given that everything we know abotu Neanderthal genetics derives from these efforts at Neanderthal genomics.) Agricolae (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The current article is centered on the history of research on the Neanderthal genome, not the genome itself. Moving it would be misleading without a substantial rewritting. Merging to Neanderthal genetics would probably suit this article better. Esiymbro (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not. It is focused on one research group's research on the genome. This is a catch 22 - the article is currently badly focused on something that isn't really notable. I could rewrite it and make it more suitable as an article, but that wouldn't match the current name, or I could rename it anticipating the substantial rewrite it requires so its coverage is more appropriate, but then it would be an imperfect name until the rewrite is done. One of these has to come first, and either way there is going to have to be a transition where the name and content don't match. The fact is, one individual research project by one group isn't really notable when, a decade later, there have been four different groups accomplish the same thing - it is the research product that is notable, not one group's efforts. Agricolae (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Since Agricolae is willing to perform the re-write, this is not a problem. I think that enough research has been published to justify and build robust, separate articles on Neanderthal genome and Neanderthal genetics. Rowan Forest (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I withdraw my vote if the article is going to be rewritten, but I'm still against the move. If you are going to completely rewrite this to an article about the genome, why not just start a new article from scratch? Neanderthal genome and Neanderthal genome project are not the same topic, and if the latter is no longer notable it can be merged or deleted. Moving does not seem to be the best solution to this. Esiymbro (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

'Neanderthal genome project' was never a really thing - one research group got some funding to try to recover the sequence of Neanderthal genomic DNA. Some wag decided to facetiously call it the Neanderthal genome project (a play on human genome project) but it was never anything more than one lab's effort to acquire Neanderthal genomic DNA, and the aspirations of one lab don't usually hit the bar of notability. Now this lab and four others have acquired Neanderthal genomic DNA. Your solution, which would entail writing a new article from scratch that includes a good bit of what is already in the existing article, then deleting the existing article, seems pointless when the existing one could just be recontextualized and added to. The last thing I want to do is write (another) content fork covering the same material as also appears on both the genome project and genetics pages. Regarding your earlier comment, everything we know about the Neanderthal genome genome comes from the historical research on it - you are effectively drawing a distinction without a difference. Would you prefer Neanderthal genomics? Agricolae (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is about the particular project, distinct from Neanderthal genetics per se. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it currently deals with a single non-notable, whimsically-named single group's project - that is why it behooves us to expand its scope. Agricolae (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The “scope” you mention is already covered at Neanderthal genetics. Do not paper over this notability-weak article by creating a content fork. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The article you refer to, Neanderthal genetics, was tagged long ago for not meeting the quality standards; What a wonderful opportunity to define, fix and expand both articles! Rowan Forest (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

But it shouldn't be covered by that other article - genomics and genetics are not the same thing, and I already said the genetics article itself needs cleaned up. Two articles are justifiable on these topics, but they are not the two articles we have. If we had an appropriate genome article, we could clean up the genetics article but we can't do that as long as this article is restricted to just one research group's effort. Agricolae (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.