Human evolutionary genetics

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Human evolutionary genetics studies how one

forensic implications and applications. Genetic data can provide important insights into human evolution
.

Origin of apes

hominoids

Biologists classify

Hominoidea of apes
.

Apes, in turn, belong to the

Scandentia.[1] This is further supported by Alu-like short interspersed nuclear elements (SINEs) which have been found only in members of the Euarchontoglires.[2]

Phylogenetics

A

sequences from populations. Often, mitochondrial DNA or Y chromosome sequences are used to study ancient human demographics. These single-locus sources of DNA do not recombine and are almost always inherited from a single parent, with only one known exception in mtDNA.[3]
Individuals from closer geographic regions generally tend to be more similar than individuals from regions farther away. Distance on a phylogenetic tree can be used approximately to indicate:

  1. Genetic distance. The genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees is less than 2%,[4] or three times larger than the variation among modern humans (estimated at 0.6%).[5]
  2. Temporal remoteness of the most recent common ancestor. The mitochondrial most recent common ancestor of modern humans is estimated to have lived roughly 160,000 years ago,[6] the latest common ancestors of humans and chimpanzees roughly 5 to 6 million years ago.[7]

Speciation of humans and the African apes

The separation of humans from their closest relatives, the non-human African apes (chimpanzees and gorillas), has been studied extensively for more than a century. Five major questions have been addressed:

  • Which apes are our closest ancestors?
  • When did the separations occur?
  • What was the effective population size of the common ancestor before the split?
  • Are there traces of population structure (subpopulations) preceding the speciation or partial admixture succeeding it?
  • What were the specific events (including fusion of chromosomes 2a and 2b) prior to and subsequent to the separation?

General observations

As discussed before, different parts of the genome show different sequence divergence between different

genomic regions of humans and chimpanzees.[8]
The percentage of nucleotides in the human genome (hg38) that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome (pantro6) was 84.38%. Additionally gene trees, generated by comparative analysis of DNA segments, do not always fit the species tree. Summing up:

Divergence times

The divergence time of humans from other apes is of great interest. One of the first molecular studies, published in 1967 measured immunological distances (IDs) between different primates.[10] Basically the study measured the strength of immunological response that an antigen from one species (human albumin) induces in the immune system of another species (human, chimpanzee, gorilla and Old World monkeys). Closely related species should have similar antigens and therefore weaker immunological response to each other's antigens. The immunological response of a species to its own antigens (e.g. human to human) was set to be 1.

The ID between humans and gorillas was determined to be 1.09, that between humans and chimpanzees was determined as 1.14. However the distance to six different Old World monkeys was on average 2.46, indicating that the African apes are more closely related to humans than to monkeys. The authors consider the divergence time between Old World monkeys and hominoids to be 30 million years ago (MYA), based on fossil data, and the immunological distance was considered to grow at a constant rate. They concluded that divergence time of humans and the African apes to be roughly ~5 MYA. That was a surprising result. Most scientists at that time thought that humans and great apes diverged much earlier (>15 MYA).

The gorilla was, in ID terms, closer to human than to chimpanzees; however, the difference was so slight that the trichotomy could not be resolved with certainty. Later studies based on molecular genetics were able to resolve the trichotomy: chimpanzees are phylogenetically closer to humans than to gorillas. However, some divergence times estimated later (using much more sophisticated methods in molecular genetics) do not substantially differ from the very first estimate in 1967, but a recent paper[11] puts it at 11–14 MYA.

Divergence times and ancestral effective population size

The sequences of the DNA segments diverge earlier than the species. A large effective population size in the ancestral population (left) preserves different variants of the DNA segments (=alleles) for a longer period of time. Therefore, on average, the gene divergence times (tA for DNA segment A; tB for DNA segment B) will deviate more from the time the species diverge (tS) compared to a small ancestral effective population size (right).

Current methods to determine divergence times use DNA sequence alignments and molecular clocks. Usually the molecular clock is calibrated assuming that the orangutan split from the African apes (including humans) 12-16 MYA. Some studies also include some old world monkeys and set the divergence time of them from hominoids to 25-30 MYA. Both calibration points are based on very little fossil data and have been criticized.[12]

If these dates are revised, the divergence times estimated from molecular data will change as well. However, the relative divergence times are unlikely to change. Even if we can't tell absolute divergence times exactly, we can be pretty sure that the divergence time between chimpanzees and humans is about sixfold shorter than between chimpanzees (or humans) and monkeys.

One study (Takahata et al., 1995) used 15 DNA sequences from different regions of the genome from human and chimpanzee and 7 DNA sequences from human, chimpanzee and gorilla.[13] They determined that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than gorillas. Using various statistical methods, they estimated the divergence time human-chimp to be 4.7 MYA and the divergence time between gorillas and humans (and chimps) to be 7.2 MYA.

Additionally they estimated the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees to be ~100,000. This was somewhat surprising since the present day effective population size of humans is estimated to be only ~10,000. If true that means that the human lineage would have experienced an immense decrease of its effective population size (and thus genetic diversity) in its evolution. (see Toba catastrophe theory)

A and B are two different loci. In the upper figure they fit to the species tree. The DNA that is present in today's gorillas diverged earlier from the DNA that is present in today's humans and chimps. Thus both loci should be more similar between human and chimp than between gorilla and chimp or gorilla and human. In the lower graph, locus A has a more recent common ancestor in human and gorilla compared to the chimp sequence. Whereas chimp and gorilla have a more recent common ancestor for locus B. Here the gene trees are incongruent to the species tree.

Another study (Chen & Li, 2001) sequenced 53 non-repetitive, intergenic DNA segments from human,

neighbor-joining
tree supported the Homo-Pan clade with 100% bootstrap (that is that humans and chimpanzees are the closest related species of the four). When three species are fairly closely related to each other (like human, chimpanzee and gorilla), the trees obtained from DNA sequence data may not be congruent with the tree that represents the speciation (species tree).

The shorter internodal time span (TIN) the more common are incongruent gene trees. The effective population size (Ne) of the internodal population determines how long genetic lineages are preserved in the population. A higher effective population size causes more incongruent gene trees. Therefore, if the internodal time span is known, the ancestral effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees can be calculated.

When each segment was analyzed individually, 31 supported the Homo-Pan clade, 10 supported the Homo-Gorilla clade, and 12 supported the Pan-Gorilla clade. Using the molecular clock the authors estimated that gorillas split up first 6.2-8.4 MYA and chimpanzees and humans split up 1.6-2.2 million years later (internodal time span) 4.6-6.2 MYA. The internodal time span is useful to estimate the ancestral effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.

A

parsimonious
analysis revealed that 24 loci supported the Homo-Pan clade, 7 supported the Homo-Gorilla clade, 2 supported the Pan-Gorilla clade and 20 gave no resolution. Additionally they took 35 protein coding loci from databases. Of these 12 supported the Homo-Pan clade, 3 the Homo-Gorilla clade, 4 the Pan-Gorilla clade and 16 gave no resolution. Therefore, only ~70% of the 52 loci that gave a resolution (33 intergenic, 19 protein coding) support the 'correct' species tree. From the fraction of loci which did not support the species tree and the internodal time span they estimated previously, the effective population of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was estimated to be ~52 000 to 96 000. This value is not as high as that from the first study (Takahata), but still much higher than present day effective population size of humans.

A third study (Yang, 2002) used the same dataset that Chen and Li used but estimated the ancestral effective population of 'only' ~12,000 to 21,000, using a different statistical method.[14]

Genetic differences between humans and other great apes

The alignable sequences within genomes of humans and chimpanzees differ by about 35 million single-nucleotide substitutions. Additionally about 3% of the complete genomes differ by deletions, insertions and duplications.[15]

Since mutation rate is relatively constant, roughly one half of these changes occurred in the human lineage. Only a very tiny fraction of those fixed differences gave rise to the different phenotypes of humans and chimpanzees and finding those is a great challenge. The vast majority of the differences are neutral and do not affect the phenotype.[citation needed]

Molecular evolution may act in different ways, through protein evolution, gene loss, differential gene regulation and RNA evolution. All are thought to have played some part in human evolution.

Gene loss

"Gene loss" redirects here. For gene loss in microorganisms, see Reductive evolution.

Many different mutations can inactivate a gene, but few will change its function in a specific way. Inactivation mutations will therefore be readily available for selection to act on. Gene loss could thus be a common mechanism of evolutionary adaptation (the "less-is-more" hypothesis).[16]

80 genes were lost in the human lineage after separation from the last common ancestor with the chimpanzee. 36 of those were for

olfactory receptors. Genes involved in chemoreception and immune response are overrepresented.[17] Another study estimated that 86 genes had been lost.[18]

Hair keratin gene KRTHAP1

A gene for type I hair keratin was lost in the human lineage. Keratins are a major component of hairs. Humans still have nine functional type I hair keratin genes, but the loss of that particular gene may have caused the thinning of human body hair. Based on the assumption of a constant molecular clock, the study predicts the gene loss occurred relatively recently in human evolution—less than 240 000 years ago, but both the Vindija Neandertal and the high-coverage Denisovan sequence contain the same premature stop codons as modern humans and hence dating should be greater than 750 000 years ago. [19]

Further information:
Evolution of hair

Myosin gene MYH16

Stedman et al. (2004) stated that the loss of the sarcomeric

cranial capacity, promoting speculation that the loss of the gene may have removed an evolutionary constraint on brain size in the genus Homo.[20]

Another estimate for the loss of the MYH16 gene is 5.3 million years ago, long before Homo appeared.[21]

Other

  • CASPASE12, a cysteinyl aspartate proteinase. The loss of this gene is speculated to have reduced the lethality of bacterial infection in humans.[17]

Gene addition

Segmental duplications (SDs or LCRs
) have had roles in creating new primate genes and shaping human genetic variation.

Human-specific DNA insertions

When the human genome was compared to the genomes of five comparison primate species, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, gibbon, and macaque, it was found that there are approximately 20,000 human-specific insertions believed to be regulatory. While most insertions appear to be fitness neutral, a small amount have been identified in positively selected genes showing associations to neural phenotypes and some relating to dental and sensory perception-related phenotypes. These findings hint at the seemingly important role of human-specific insertions in the recent evolution of humans.[22]

Selection pressures

HACNS1) that may have played a role in the development of the opposable thumb
.

It has also been hypothesized that much of the difference between humans and chimpanzees is attributable to the regulation of gene expression rather than differences in the genes themselves. Analyses of conserved non-coding sequences, which often contain functional and thus positively selected regulatory regions, address this possibility.[23]

Sequence divergence between humans and apes

When the draft sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) genome was published in the summer 2005, 2400 million bases (of ~3160 million bases) were sequenced and assembled well enough to be compared to the human genome.[15] 1.23% of this sequenced differed by single-base substitutions. Of this, 1.06% or less was thought to represent fixed differences between the species, with the rest being variant sites in humans or chimpanzees. Another type of difference, called indels (insertions/deletions) accounted for many fewer differences (15% as many), but contributed ~1.5% of unique sequence to each genome, since each insertion or deletion can involve anywhere from one base to millions of bases.[15]

A companion paper examined

segmental duplications in the two genomes,[24]
whose insertion and deletion into the genome account for much of the indel sequence. They found that a total of 2.7% of euchromatic sequence had been differentially duplicated in one or the other lineage.

Percentage sequence divergence between humans and other hominids[8]
Locus Human-Chimp Human-Gorilla Human-Orangutan
Alu elements 2 - -
Non-coding (Chr. Y) 1.68 ± 0.19 2.33 ± 0.2 5.63 ± 0.35
Pseudogenes (autosomal) 1.64 ± 0.10 1.87 ± 0.11 -
Pseudogenes (Chr. X) 1.47 ± 0.17 - -
Noncoding (autosomal) 1.24 ± 0.07 1.62 ± 0.08 3.08 ± 0.11
Genes (Ks) 1.11 1.48 2.98
Introns 0.93 ± 0.08 1.23 ± 0.09 -
Xq13.3 0.92 ± 0.10 1.42 ± 0.12 3.00 ± 0.18
Subtotal for X chromosome 1.16 ± 0.07 1.47 ± 0.08 -
Genes (Ka) 0.8 0.93 1.96

The sequence divergence has generally the following pattern: Human-Chimp < Human-Gorilla << Human-Orangutan, highlighting the close kinship between humans and the African apes.

autosomes. The X chromosome is inherited twice as often through the female germ line as through the male germ line and therefore shows slightly lower sequence divergence. The sequence divergence of the Xq13.3 region is surprisingly low between humans and chimpanzees.[25]

Mutations altering the amino acid sequence of proteins (Ka) are the least common. In fact ~29% of all orthologous proteins are identical between human and chimpanzee. The typical protein differs by only two amino acids.[15] The measures of sequence divergence shown in the table only take the substitutional differences, for example from an A (adenine) to a G (guanine), into account. DNA sequences may however also differ by insertions and deletions (indels) of bases. These are usually stripped from the alignments before the calculation of sequence divergence is performed.

Genetic differences between modern humans and Neanderthals

An international group of scientists completed a draft sequence of the

lactose-intolerant variant of the lactase gene that encodes an enzyme that is unable to break down lactose in milk after weaning. Modern humans and Neanderthals also share the FOXP2 gene variant associated with brain development and with speech in modern humans, indicating that Neanderthals may have been able to speak. Chimps have two amino acid differences in FOXP2 compared with human and Neanderthal FOXP2.[26][27][28]

Genetic differences among modern humans

Further information:
Archaic admixture, Race and genetics, and Human variability
Further information: Human genetics, Archaeogenetics, Human mitochondrial DNA haplogroup, Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup, and Genetic genealogy

70,000 years ago
throughout Eurasia and Oceania. A 2009 study identified 14 "ancestral population clusters", the most remote being the San people of Southern Africa.[29][30]

With their rapid expansion throughout different climate zones, and especially with the availability of new food sources with the

EDAR, ADH1B, ABCC1, and ALDH2
genes.

The East Asian types of ADH1B in particular are associated with

EDAR gene, dated to c. 35,000 years ago.[32]

As of 2017[update], the Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Database (dbSNP), which lists SNP and other variants, listed a total of 324 million variants found in sequenced human genomes.[33] Nucleotide diversity, the average proportion of nucleotides that differ between two individuals, is estimated at between 0.1% and 0.4% for contemporary humans (compared to 2% between humans and chimpanzees).[34][35] This corresponds to genome differences at a few million sites; the 1000 Genomes Project similarly found that "a typical [individual] genome differs from the reference human genome at 4.1 million to 5.0 million sites … affecting 20 million bases of sequence."[36]

In February 2019, scientists discovered evidence, based on

modern humans.[37][38]

Research studies

In March 2019, Chinese scientists reported inserting the human brain-related

rhesus monkeys, resulting in the transgenic monkeys performing better and answering faster on "short-term memory tests involving matching colors and shapes", compared to control non-transgenic monkeys, according to the researchers.[39][40]

In May 2023, scientists reported, based on genetic studies, a more complicated pathway of human evolution than previously understood. According to the studies, humans evolved from different places and times in Africa, instead of from a single location and period of time.[41][42]

On 31 August 2023, researchers reported, based on genetic studies, that a

human ancestor population bottleneck occurred "around 930,000 and 813,000 years ago ... lasted for about 117,000 years and brought human ancestors close to extinction."[43][44]

See also

References

  1. S2CID 34367609
    .
  2. PMID 16515367
    .
  3. PMID 12192017
    .
  4. ^ ""Human Chromosome 2." PBS". PBS. Archived from the original on 2018-07-31. Retrieved 2017-08-31.
  5. ^ As of 2015, the typical difference between the genomes of two individuals was estimated at 20 million base pairs (or 0.6% of the total of 3.2 billion base pairs): "a typical [individual] genome differs from the reference human genome at 4.1 million to 5.0 million sites [...] affecting 20 million bases of sequence" Auton A, Brooks LD, Durbin RM, Garrison EP, Kang HM, Korbel JO, et al. (October 2015). "A global reference for human genetic variation". Nature. 526 (7571): 68–74.
    PMID 26432245
    .
  6. PMID 23523248
    ..
  7. S2CID 2325560
    .
  8. ^
    PMID 11170892
    .
  9. ^ Ken Miller in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial transcripts.
  10. S2CID 7349579
    .
  11. PMID 24926018
    .
  12. PMID 10889221
    .
  13. PMID 7482371
    .
  14. PMID 12524351. Archived
    from the original on 16 February 2011. Retrieved 25 August 2006.
  15. ^
    PMID 16136131
    .
  16. PMID 9915938
    .
  17. ^
    PMID 16464126
    .
  18. PMID 17183716
    .
  19. S2CID 21545865
    .
  20. S2CID 4304466
    .
  21. PMID 15470226
    .
  22. PMID 25635043
    .
  23. PMID 17578567
    .
  24. S2CID 4420359
    .
  25. S2CID 9153915
    .
  26. doi:10.1002/scin.2009.5591750604
    .
  27. PMID 20448178
    .
  28. ^ "NEANDERTALS LIVE!". john hawks weblog. 6 May 2010. Archived from the original on 2010-12-16. Retrieved 2010-12-31.
  29. PMID 19407144
    .
  30. ^ BBC World News "Africa's genetic secrets unlocked" Archived 2009-07-01 at the Wayback Machine, 1 May 2009.
  31. PMID 20089146
    .
  32. PMID 23415220. East Asian Physical Traits Linked to 35,000-Year-Old Mutation Archived 2021-08-13 at the Wayback Machine
    , NYT, 14 February 2013.
  33. ^ NCBI (2017-05-08). "dbSNP's human build 150 has doubled the amount of RefSNP records!". NCBI Insights. Archived from the original on 2020-04-08. Retrieved 2017-05-16.
  34. ^ Jorde, LB; Wooding, SP (2004). "Genetic variation, classification and 'race'".
    PMID 15508000
    .
  35. ^ Tishkoff, SA; Kidd, KK (2004). "Implications of biogeography of human populations for 'race' and medicine".
    PMID 15507999
    .
  36. PMID 26432245.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link
    )
  37. PMID 30651539
    .
  38. ^ Dockrill, Peter (11 February 2019). "Artificial Intelligence Has Found an Unknown 'Ghost' Ancestor in The Human Genome". ScienceAlert.com. Archived from the original on 23 April 2022. Retrieved 11 February 2019.
  39. ^ Burrell, Teal (29 December 2019). "Scientists Put a Human Intelligence Gene Into a Monkey. Other Scientists are Concerned". Discover. Archived from the original on 30 December 2019. Retrieved 30 December 2019.
  40. PMID 34691896. Archived
    from the original on 4 October 2022. Retrieved 30 December 2019.
  41. ^ Zimmer, Carl (17 May 2023). "Study Offers New Twist in How the First Humans Evolved - A new genetic analysis of 290 people suggests that humans emerged at various times and places in Africa". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 17 May 2023. Retrieved 18 May 2023.
  42. PMID 37198480
    .
  43. ^ Zimmer, Carl (31 August 2023). "Humanity's Ancestors Nearly Died Out, Genetic Study Suggests - The population crashed following climate change about 930,000 years ago, scientists concluded. Other experts aren't convinced by the analysis". the New York Times. Archived from the original on 31 August 2023. Retrieved 2 September 2023.
  44. S2CID 261396309. Archived
    from the original on 1 September 2023. Retrieved 2 September 2023.

Further reading

External links
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_evolutionary_genetics&oldid=1212850618"