Razib Khan One-stop-shopping for all of my content

August 22, 2018

Hominins are still having sex, caught in flagrante delicto

Assuming you haven’t been sleeping under a rock, you have probably heard that a Nature paper came out on an F1 Neanderthal-Denisovan hybrid. The major new science in my opinion from the results of the genome itself is to be found in the figure above. It confirms that there was a lot of population turnover among Neanderthals, as this individual’s mother is more closely related to European Neanderthals who flourished ~40,000 years later than conspecifics from the same region 30,000 years earlier. This is not surprising in light of what we know about the genetics and paleoecology of this group, though it confirms what we know and increases our confidence.

Rather, what is surprising is that this paper was published because they found an F1. From their conclusion:

It is notable that one direct offspring of a Neanderthal and a Denisovan (Denisova 11) and one modern human with a close Neanderthal relative (Oase 1) have been identified among the few individuals from whom DNA has been retrieved and who lived at the time of overlap of these groups…In conjunction with the presence of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in ancient and present-day people…this suggests that mixing among archaic and modern hominin groups may have been frequent when they met.

The number of ancient genomes from these species/groups/lineages is literally in the range a handful. And among the early finds is an F1! This seems highly unlikely. It could be a fluke. Or, as inferred above, F1’s may have been very common when different hominin lineages met.

But that makes one ask: how is it that Neanderthals and Denisovans remained some genetically distinct over hundreds of thousands of years? The two reasons offered are that the lineages were geographically very distant from each other on the whole, and, that hybrid individuals had very low fitness. I think the former is the primary dynamic to focus on.

For my assertion to make sense, consider some context in the published literature and theory. From 2004 and 2011 respectively, Modern Humans Did Not Admix with Neanderthals during Their Range Expansion into Europe and Strong reproductive isolation between humans and Neanderthals inferred from observed patterns of introgression.

From the first paper:

…we estimate that maximum interbreeding rates between the two populations should have been smaller than 0.1%. We indeed show that the absence of Neanderthal mtDNA sequences in Europe is compatible with at most 120 admixture events between the two populations despite a likely cohabitation time of more than 12,000 y. This extremely low number strongly suggests an almost complete sterility between Neanderthal females and modern human males, implying that the two populations were probably distinct biological species.

And the second:

Recent studies have revealed that 2–3% of the genome of non-Africans might come from Neanderthals, suggesting a more complex scenario of modern human evolution than previously anticipated. In this paper, we use a model of admixture during a spatial expansion to study the hybridization of Neanderthals with modern humans during their spread out of Africa. We find that observed low levels of Neanderthal ancestry in Eurasians are compatible with a very low rate of interbreeding (<2%), potentially attributable to a very strong avoidance of interspecific matings, a low fitness of hybrids, or both.

Models are models, and they have assumptions. Don’t have the player, hate the model assumption and revisit your priors.

There are 22 ancient genomes from 40,000 years ago or before. One of them is an F1 between Neanderthals and Denisovans. And another, Oase 1, has a Neanderthal in their very recent ancestry. The sampling locations may not be totally representative. The Denisova cave is likely to be special because it’s at the nexus of the ranges of the two Eurasian archaic lineages. But with that out of the way, it seems very unlikely to me that very low fitness or very low likelihood of mating when it close contact is the reason that the lineages remained distinct. After less than half a dozen samples from Denisova, cave researchers hit on an F1. What are the chances?

And yet, if matings between the lineages occurred when they were in close contact, and they were genetically distinct nevertheless over such long periods, then that demands an explanation. Denisova hominins and Neanderthals were genetically closer than modern humans are to either. At the time that F1 was conceived the two lineages had been distinct for ~300,000 years. This is not qualitatively much longer than some modern human groups (e.g., Khoisan vs. everyone else) have been diverging. And yet, like the Denisovan-Neanderthal split, modern humans have a lot of population structure and evidence of isolation (also, note that modern humans show no evidence of reduced reproductive fitness from offspring and purification of admixture, as has been inferred for Neanderthal genomic regions in modern human genomes).

All this leads me to conclude that in Pleistocene hominins allopatry and metapopulation dynamics are the solutions to this quandary. The population density of archaic hominins was on average low, but you need to go beyond average. The distribution was possibly highly patchy and with large zones of little habitation. Gene flow across populations may have occurred, but they would run up to a wall of emptiness equivalent to the Atlantic ocean. Additionally, both Neanderthal and modern human ancient indicates a recurrent pattern of location population extinction and replacement. My hypothesis is that populations which were liminal to the range of both lineages, and so likely to have a higher load of admixture from the other lineage, were also in a marginal territory and most likely to go extinct and leave no descendants. Then, less admixed populations with larger numbers close to the core of the lineage range would repopulate the liminal region.

If the model is correct, I think the Altai was resettled by Neanderthals from the west after the Eemian interglacial.

A contrasting method to maintain genetic separation from allopatry (physical distance and barrier) are group cultural identities which maintain very strict endogamy. We see this over 2,000 years in India, where populations are co-localized but almost totally unrelated in any way you’d predict from geography. But 2,000 years is a blink of an eye geologically. The explanation for why Neanderthals and Denisovans, and various African human lineages, remained separate for hundreds of thousands of years as coherent populations despite some gene flow on the margins, has to be geology, geography and ecology. Domains where hundreds of thousands years of stasis on quite possible.

November 21, 2011

Don’t hate the hybrid!

Filed under: Genetics,Hybridization — Razib Khan @ 4:44 am

There is a specter haunting the intersection of conservation biology and public policy, the specter of the biological species concept. Coyote-Wolf Hybrids Have Spread Across U.S. East:

Scientists already knew that some coyotes, which have been gradually expanding their range eastward, mated with wolves in the Great Lakes (map) region. The pairings created viable hybrid offspring—identified by their DNA and skulls—that have been found in mid-Atlantic states such as New York and Pennsylvania.

Now, new DNA analysis of coyote poop shows for the first time that some coyotes in the state of Virginia are also part wolf. Scientists think these animals are coyote-wolf hybrids that traveled south from New England along the Appalachian Mountains.

Most of the wolf ancestry in the lower 48 states might be in “coyotes!”

July 18, 2011

Neanderthal-human mating, months later….


Image credit:ICHTO

Recently something popped up into my Google news feed in regards to “Neanderthal-human mating.” If you are a regular reader you know that I’m wild for this particular combination of the “wild thing.” But a quick perusal of the press release told me that this was a paper I had already reviewed when it was published online in January. I even used the results in the paper to confirm Neanderthal admixture in my own family (we’ve all been genotyped). One of my siblings is in fact a hemizygote for the Neanderthal alleles on the locus in question! I guess it shows the power of press releases upon the media. I would offer up the explanation that this just shows that the more respectable press doesn’t want to touch papers which aren’t in print, but that’s not a good explanation when they are willing to hype up stuff which is presented at conferences at even an earlier stage.

A second aspect I noted is that except for Ron Bailey at Reason all the articles which use a color headshot use a ...

April 27, 2011

Neandertal hybridization & Haldane’s rule

Mr. James Winters at A Replicated Typo pointed me to a short hypothesis paper, Neanderthal-human Hybrids. This paper argues that selective mating of Neandertal males with females of human populations which had left Africa more recently, combined with Haldane’s rule, explains three facts:

- The lack of Neandertal Y chromosomal lineages in modern humans.

- The lack of Neandertal mtDNA lineages in modern humans.

- The probable existence of Neandertal autosomal ancestry in modern humans.

If you don’t know, Haldane’s rule basically suggests that there’s going to be some sort of breakdown in the heterogametic sex. In humans females are homogametic, XX, and males are heterogametic, XY. The breakdown need not be death (or spontaneous abortion). It could be sterility (e.g., some mutation or genetic incompatibility which results in the malfunctioning of the flagella of sperm would do it).

So you have a scenario where only Neandertal males are interbreeding with the intrusive groups from the south. The hybrids from these pairings would then lack Neandertal mtDNA, since mtDNA is passed only from mothers. But the male offspring would have Neandertal Y chromosomes. This is where Haldane’s rule kicks in: these males in their turn would not reproduce. Therefore only the female hybrids ...

August 12, 2010

Hybridization is like sex

480px-Olivia_MunnOne of the major issues which has loomed at the heart of biology since The Origin of Species is why species exist, as well as how species come about. Why isn’t there a perfect replicator which performs all the conversion of energy and matter into biomass on this planet? If there is a God the tree of life almost seems to be a testament to his riotous aesthetic sense, with numerous branches which lead to convergences, and a inordinate fascination with variants on the basic morph of beetles. From the outside the outcomes of evolutionary biology look a patent mess, a sprawling expanse of experiments and misfires.

A similar issue has vexed biologists in relation to sex. Why is it that the vast majority of complex organisms take upon themselves the costs of sex? The existence of a non-offspring bearing form within a species reduces the potential natural increase by a factor of two before the game has even begun. Not only that, but the existence of two sexes who must seek each other out expends crucial energy in a Malthusian world (selfing hermaphrodites obviously don’t have this problem, but for highly complex organisms they aren’t so common). Why bother? (I mean in an ultimate, not proximate, sense)

It seems likely that part of the answer to both these questions on the grande scale is that the perfect is the enemy of long term survival. Sexual reproduction confers upon a lineage a genetic variability which may reduce fitness by shifting populations away from the adaptive peak in the short term, but the fitness landscape itself is a constant bubbling flux, and perfectly engineered asexual lineages may all too often fall off the cliff of what was once their mountain top. The only inevitability seems to be that the times change. Similarly, the natural history of life on earth tells us that all greatness comes to an end, and extinction is the lot of life. The universe is an unpredictable place and the mighty invariably fall, as the branches of life’s tree are always pruned by the gardeners red in tooth and claw.

ResearchBlogging.orgBut it is one thing to describe reality in broad verbal brushes. How about a more rigorous empirical and theoretical understanding of how organisms and the genetic material through which they gain immortality play out in the universe? A new paper which uses plant models explores the costs and benefits of admixture between lineages, and how those two dynamics operate in a heterogeneous and homogeneous world. Population admixture, biological invasions and the balance between local adaptation and inbreeding depression:

When previously isolated populations meet and mix, the resulting admixed population can benefit from several genetic advantages, including increased genetic variation, the creation of novel genotypes and the masking of deleterious mutations. These admixture benefits are thought to play an important role in biological invasions. In contrast, populations in their native range often remain differentiated and frequently suffer from inbreeding depression owing to isolation. While the advantages of admixture are evident for introduced populations that experienced recent bottlenecks or that face novel selection pressures, it is less obvious why native range populations do not similarly benefit from admixture. Here we argue that a temporary loss of local adaptation in recent invaders fundamentally alters the fitness consequences of admixture. In native populations, selection against dilution of the locally adapted gene pool inhibits unconstrained admixture and reinforces population isolation, with some level of inbreeding depression as an expected consequence. We show that admixture is selected against despite significant inbreeding depression because the benefits of local adaptation are greater than the cost of inbreeding. In contrast, introduced populations that have not yet established a pattern of local adaptation can freely reap the benefits of admixture. There can be strong selection for admixture because it instantly lifts the inbreeding depression that had built up in isolated parental populations. Recent work in Silene suggests that reduced inbreeding depression associated with post-introduction admixture may contribute to enhanced fitness of invasive populations. We hypothesize that in locally adapted populations, the benefits of local adaptation are balanced against an inbreeding cost that could develop in part owing to the isolating effect of local adaptation itself. The inbreeding cost can be revealed in admixing populations during recent invasions.

First, plants are good models to explore evolutionary genetics. They’re not as constrained as say mammals, or the typical tetrapod, when it comes to barriers to gene flow between distinct taxa. Hybridization is common, and plants can also self-fertilize as well as cross-fertilize, allowing researchers to push the genetic pool in different directions (”selfing” obviously reduces the effective population and is an extreme form of inbreeding, so it’s a good way to purge genetic variation really quickly). In a perfect abstract world of evolution one might imagine Richard Dawkins’ vehicles and replicators as fluid entities which float along a turbid sea of evolutionary genetic parameters, drift, migration, mutation and selection. But reality is constrained to DNA substrate, which have their own parameters such as recombination, modulators such as epigenetics, and numerous ways to express variation through gene regulation. It’s complicated, and stripping the issues down to their pith is easier said that done.

But the broader dynamics here being examined is the generalist-specialist trade-off, which I think is relevant to the two issues I introduced earlier in this post. Specialists are optimized for their own position in the adaptive landscape, but have difficulties when it is perturbed. Generalists always less than maximum fitness in all landscapes, but higher average fitness across them because they can adapt to changes. Specialization is local adaptation of particular lineages, while in the generalist case you can have invasive species in novel environments. They’re obviously facing an adaptive landscape which is at some remove from what any of the introduced genotypes were “optimized” for, so hybridization produces something new for something new.

In the first figure of the paper you see F3 wild barley descended from two parental lineages, ME and AQ. The left panels show seed output as a function of heterozygosity, and the right panels as a function of ME genome content. Remember that in subsequent generations the descendants of hybrids will vary quite a big in genetics and phenotype as the original alleles re-segregate.

F1.large

The takeaway is that in novel environments genetic variation seems to result in increased fitness. Why? One concept which one has to introduce is heterosis, whereby crosses between homogeneous lineages produce more fitness offspring. One reason this may be is that there is overdominance, where heterozygotes have greater fitness than the homogyzotes. This is the case with sickle-cell malaria disease. Another reason may be that in the original parental lineages there was a higher fraction of alleles which were deleterious in homozygote genotypes. In plain English, inbreeding resulted in genetic drift which cranked up the proportion of alleles implicated in recessively express negative phenotypes. The authors argue though that in the context local adaptation is strong enough to be a barrier against too much gene flow between the parental wild barely lineages, so the deleterious alleles are less likely to be masked. Only in a novel environment when that benefit was removed from the equation could the negative consequences of inbreeding come to the fore in the total calculus.

Figure 2 shows the results of experiments which examine the fitness of white campion, a European species which has been introduced in North America. In the left panel are crosses between native European lineages, with distance between parental lineages on the x-axis. In the right panel you have the same experiment, but with North American variants, which are products of introductions from various regions of Europe. The plants were grown in a “common garden,” to show how all the genotypes performed when environment was controlled.

F2.large

As you can see moderate levels of hybridization entailed a benefit in the European variants, but not the North American variants. Hybridization between variants which were too distant did produce outbreeding depression in the European case, suggesting perhaps that disruption of co-adapted gene complexes resulted in a greater fitness cost than the masking of deleterious alleles due to inbreeding. One can make the inference from these data that the introduced white campion lineages are already hybridized, the barriers to crossing being removed by a disruption of the adaptive landscapes which each native lineages was optimized for.

Here are the authors from the discussion talking about invasions of exotic species:

Provided that multiple introductions from different source populations have occurred, the benefits of admixture become freely available to introduced populations that do not yet show a pattern of local adaptation. Because the benefits are potentially large, admixture may play an important role during early invasions. Native populations often show evidence of inbreeding depression…and one instant reward of admixture in the introduced range is the release of this genetic burden. Such heterosis effects can contribute significantly to the establishment and early success of invasive species…When tested together in a common garden experiment, invaders can show enhanced fitness-related traits compared with populations from their native range…If there is evidence of admixture, the effects of heterosis might be a default explanation for such observations, perhaps providing a null expectation against which other explanations (such as trait evolution) need to be tested.

What have plants to do with life as a whole? I assume much. Plants differ in the details, but compared to other complex multicellular organisms in regards to evolutionary genetics they’re quite liberated. By this, I mean that their modes of reproduction and promiscuity in hybridization make them more of an ideal “frictionless” test case of evolutionary biology and the power of the classical parameters. Perhaps given enough time natural selection would produce the ideal replicator to rule them all, to drive all others to extinction. But that day is not this day. And that day may never come because the universe is far too protean and erratic. Life is varied, on the phenotypic and genotypic level, and the exogenous processes of climate and geology continue to warp and reshape the adaptive landscape. And more subtly, but just as critically, life is always in an endless race with itself, as pathogens co-evolve with their hosts, and predators figure out how to outfox their prey. Life warps its own adaptive landscapes, and the innovation of one branch may lead to extinction of others as well as the proliferation of new branches.

More prosaically and anthropocentrically what does this say about us? Humans are an expansive species, and over the past 500 years different lineages have been hybridizing promiscuously. New genotypes have arisen in altered landscapes, and our pathogens are also riding the high tide of globalization onward and upward. We are ourselves a “natural experiment.”

Image Credit: Olivia Munn by Gage Skidmore

Link hat tip: Dienekes.

Citation: Verhoeven KJ, Macel M, Wolfe LM, & Biere A (2010). Population admixture, biological invasions and the balance between local adaptation and inbreeding depression. Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society PMID: 20685700

May 7, 2010

Grizzly-Polar bear hybrids in the wild

Filed under: Genetics,Hybridization — Razib Khan @ 12:25 pm

Timely, Pizzly Bears:

Scientists confirmed last week that a bear shot by an Inuvialuit hunter in the Northwest Territories is a second-generation grizzly-polar bear hybrid—a “pizzly” or “grolar” bear.

Not that big of a deal. It is likely that polar bears are simply a recent derived variant of brown bear. The main issue not noted in the Slate piece is that time until last common ancestor isn’t the only parameter to consider. Placental Invasiveness Mediates the Evolution of Hybrid Inviability in Mammals:

A central question in evolutionary biology is why animal lineages differ strikingly in rates and patterns of the evolution of reproductive isolation. Here, we show that the maximum genetic distance at which interspecific mammalian pregnancies yield viable neonates is significantly greater in clades with invasive (hemochorial) placentation than in clades with noninvasive (epitheliochorial or endotheliochorial) placentation. Moreover, sister species with invasive placentation exhibit higher allopatry in their geographic ranges, suggesting that formerly separated populations in mammals with this placental type fuse more readily on recontact. These differences are apparently driven by the stronger downregulation of maternal immune responses under invasive placentation, where fetal antigens directly contact the maternal bloodstream. Our results suggest that placental invasiveness mediates a major component of reproductive isolation in mammals.

For what it’s worth, primates tend toward invasive placentation.

Share/Bookmark

Powered by WordPress