Cited by 1,107Pleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyForensic and Genetic ResearchGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

The genomic landscape of Neanderthal ancestry in present-day humans

Open access
Sankararaman, Sriram, Mallick, Swapan, Dannemann, Michael, Prüfer, Kay, Kelso, Janet, Pääbo, Svante, Patterson, Nick, Reich, David·2014·Nature

Abstract

Genomic studies have shown that Neanderthals interbred with modern humans, and that non-Africans today are the products of this mixture. The antiquity of Neanderthal gene flow into modern humans means that genomic regions that derive from Neanderthals in any one human today are usually less than a hundred kilobases in size. However, Neanderthal haplotypes are also distinctive enough that several studies have been able to detect Neanderthal ancestry at specific loci. We systematically infer Neanderthal haplotypes in the genomes of 1,004 present-day humans. Regions that harbour a high frequency of Neanderthal alleles are enriched for genes affecting keratin filaments, suggesting that Neanderthal alleles may have helped modern humans to adapt to non-African environments. We identify multiple Neanderthal-derived alleles that confer risk for disease, suggesting that Neanderthal alleles continue to shape human biology. An unexpected finding is that regions with reduced Neanderthal ancestry are enriched in genes, implying selection to remove genetic material derived from Neanderthals. Genes that are more highly expressed in testes than in any other tissue are especially reduced in Neanderthal ancestry, and there is an approximately fivefold reduction of Neanderthal ancestry on the X chromosome, which is known from studies of diverse species to be especially dense in male hybrid sterility genes. These results suggest that part of the explanation for genomic regions of reduced Neanderthal ancestry is Neanderthal alleles that caused decreased fertility in males when moved to a modern human genetic background.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nature12961

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • East Asians have the greatest number of sites containing archaic alleles, followed by South Asians, while Europeans have the fewest.

    “We found that East Asians have the greatest number of sites containing archaic alleles, followed by South Asians, while Europeans have the fewest (fig. 2A), as has been previously established (Sankararaman et al. 2014, 2016).”

    From The Impact of Modern Admixture on Archaic Human Ancestry in Human Populations (2023) · cites this paper as Sankararaman et al. 2014

    The paper reports a higher mean proportion of Neandertal ancestry in East Asians (1.38%) than in Europeans (1.15%) in the passage labeled Abstract (no page supplied). It does not establish the claimed ranking by number of sites containing archaic alleles, and the population comparison in that passage does not include South Asians. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Introgressed archaic alleles are mostly observed outside protein-coding sequences, distributed over non-functional and regulatory regions.

    “At the genomic level these introgressed archaic alleles are mostly observed outside protein-coding sequences, distributed over non-functional and regulatory regions [8, 9].”

    From Denisovan introgression has shaped the immune system of present-day Papuans (2022) · cites this paper as [8]

    The paper reports reduced Neandertal ancestry near genes and in regions dense with functionally important elements (Abstract; page unavailable). That supports a relative depletion in such regions, but our copy does not establish that most introgressed alleles lie outside protein-coding sequences or specify their distribution across non-functional and regulatory regions. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous attempts to identify archaic fragments in contemporary humans have generally relied on existing archaic genomes, which partially represent the haplotypic diversity of archaic populations.

    “Previous attempts to identify archaic fragments in contemporary humans have generally relied on existing archaic genomes [14][15][16] , which partially represent the haplotypic diversity of the archaic populations.”

    From The nature of Neanderthal introgression revealed by 27,566 Icelandic genomes (2020) · cites this paper as [15]

    The paper’s Abstract and Online Methods (Preparation of 1000 Genomes Data; page unavailable) say its method used the Altai Neandertal genome as a reference to identify Neandertal haplotypes in present-day humans. This supports an example of reliance on an existing archaic genome, but the cited passages do not establish that previous attempts generally did so or discuss how fully existing genomes represent archaic haplotypic diversity. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Humans in Central and East Asia are known to have elevated Neanderthal ancestry compared to other populations.

    “Humans in Central and East Asia are known to have elevated Neanderthal ancestry compared to other populations (22).”

    From An ancestral recombination graph of human, Neanderthal, and Denisovan genomes (2021) · cites this paper as [22]

    The paper’s ancestry comparison (Table 1, in the supplied passage) reports higher mean Neanderthal ancestry in East Asians than Europeans: 1.38% versus 1.15%. It does not report a corresponding finding for Central Asians, so the claim’s inclusion of Central Asia is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The increased Neanderthal ancestry in Central and East Asian populations relative to others is due to weaker selection against alleles that may be mildly deleterious, made possible because of smaller historical population sizes in this part of Eurasia, rather than to additional admixture events.

    “This observation favors the hypothesis that the increased Neanderthal ancestry in these populations relative to others is due to weaker selection against alleles that may be mildly deleterious (32), made possible because of smaller historical population sizes in this part of Eurasia, rather than to additional admixture events (22).”

    From An ancestral recombination graph of human, Neanderthal, and Denisovan genomes (2021) · cites this paper as [22]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sankararaman, S., Mallick, S., Dannemann, M., Prüfer, K., Kelso, J., Pääbo, S., Patterson, N., & Reich, D.
Affiliations
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Sankararaman, Sriram
  • Reich, David
Venue
Nature
Published
2014-01-29
Volume
507
Issue
7492
Pages
354-357
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2009494639
Cited by
1,107
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 93 · 2024: 131 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 110 · 2020: 81 · 2019: 80 · 2018: 98 · 2017: 96 · 2016: 108 · 2015: 66 · 2014: 65 · 2013: 3
FWCI
535.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (R01HG006399)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM100233, R01GM100233)
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 Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
Neanderthal ancestry, Neanderthal admixture, keratin genes, disease risk alleles, X chromosome, testis-expressed genes, male fertility, human evolution, modern human genomes, Neanderthal introgression
MeSH terms
Alleles, Animals, Female, Haplotypes, Humans, Hybridization, Genetic, Infertility, Male, Keratins, Male, Organ Specificity, Phylogeny, Selection, Genetic, Testis, X Chromosome, Genome, Human, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Genomics, Gene Flow, 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