Something old, something borrowed: admixture and adaptation in human evolution
Abstract
The sequencing of ancient DNA from archaic humans-Neanderthals and Denisovans-has revealed that modern and archaic humans interbred at least twice during the Pleistocene. The field of human paleogenomics has now turned its attention towards understanding the nature of this genetic legacy in the gene pool of present-day humans. What exactly did modern humans obtain from interbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans? Was the introgressed genetic material beneficial, neutral or maladaptive? Can differences in phenotypes among present-day human populations be explained by archaic human introgression? These questions are of prime importance for our understanding of recent human evolution, but will require careful computational modeling and extensive functional assays before they can be answered in full. Here, we review the recent literature characterizing introgressed DNA and the likely biological consequences for their modern human carriers. We focus particularly on archaic human haplotypes that were beneficial to modern humans as they expanded across the globe, and on ways to understand how populations harboring these haplotypes evolved over time.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some remaining Neandertal variants have reached high frequencies in some present-day populations, suggesting they might have conferred advantages at some point since admixture.
“Some of the remaining Neandertal variants have reached high frequencies in some present-day populations, suggesting that they might have conferred advantages at some point since admixture [12, 18, 19].”
From Neandertal introgression partitions the genetic landscape of neuropsychiatric disorders and associated behavioral phenotypes (2022) · cites this paper as [18]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 79 · Cited by 87
- Authors
- Dannemann, M., & Racimo, F.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (DE)
- Natural History Museum of Denmark (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Racimo, Fernando
- Venue
- Current Opinion in Genetics & Development
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-12
- Volume
- 53
- Pages
- 1-8
- ISSN
- 0959-437X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2794693739
- Cited by
- 87
- References
- 79
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 9.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Current Opinion in Genetics & Development (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
- Keywords
- Neanderthal admixture, Denisovan admixture, ancient DNA, human evolution, adaptive introgression, modern human populations
- MeSH terms
- DNA, Ancient, Adaptation, Physiological, Animals, Biological Evolution, Genetics, Population, Haplotypes, Humans, Hominidae, Genome, Human, Evolution, Molecular, Neanderthals
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review