john hawks weblog

paleoanthropology, genetics and evolution

pigmentation

  • Chemical effects of pigmentation variation

    Sat, 2012-11-10 11:30 -- John Hawks

    I lectured on pigmentation in my introductory class this week, and this recent news story is relevant: "Redheads may be at higher risk of melanoma even without sun". The article describes experiments in which mice were kept out of UV radiation entirely for the control portion of another experiment, when the researchers noticed a clear difference:

    When researchers compared skin samples of the different mice, the redheaded mice showed almost three times as much damage due to oxidative stress, leading authors to conclude that pheomelanin was the culprit.

    Conversely, the brown-black pigment, eumelanin, possibly acted as an antioxidant in the black-haired mice and counteracted the red pigment's damaging behavior. The albino mice lacked either type of functioning pigment.

    The genetic pathway underlying pigmentation is fairly well understood, but there are still unknown biochemical aspects of these molecules, which are locally quite concentrated in some tissues. The research described here was in Nature recently, by Devarati Mitra and colleagues [1]. The conclusion of that paper reflects on the implications for understanding human pigmentation variation:

    Further evidence suggesting an ultraviolet-radiation-independent red hair/fair skin melanoma risk is the observation that although darker-skinned individuals have a significantly lower risk of melanoma than lighter-skinned individuals, the sun protective factor (SPF, a measurement of sunburn protection) of darker skin has been estimated at only in the range of SPF 2.0–4.0 (ref. 28). In addition, sunscreen (typically SPF 20–40) has shown weak efficacy in protecting against melanoma, unlike its protection against cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. There are numerous potential explanations for the sunscreen-melanoma data including the possibility that ultraviolet radiation shielding may protect against only one of several carcinogenic mechanisms—with the intrinsic pheomelanin pathway representing an additional contributor to melanomagenesis via ultraviolet-radiation-independent means. These data are not evidence against a role for ultraviolet radiation in melanomagenesis. Indeed, the effect of ultraviolet radiation is likely to exacerbate this mechanism, such that ultraviolet radiation shielding and sunscreen remain extremely important for skin cancer prevention. However, further preventative strategies may be essential to optimally diminish melanoma risk in the most susceptible individuals.

    Most teachers who present human pigmentation as a defense against UV radiation gloss over the relatively low SPF of darker skin. That's not to say it isn't helpful in reducing UV-induced damage, but it's not a perfect defense. In case you wonder why most juvenile humans retain hair covering for their heads, that low SPF protection from melanin is part of the explanation.


    References

  • Mailbag: Neandertal pigmentation

    Sun, 2012-10-28 11:08 -- John Hawks
    Good morning

    The BBC TV Prehistoric Autopsy programme was fascinating.

    I couldn't help noticing that Neanderthal's range was roughly the same as that of early white-skinned Homo sapiens. No mention was made of the possibility that we inherited white-skin genes from breeding with Neanderthals, they after all had had a longer time to evolve this trait than us.

    Is there any evidence for or against such a hypothesis?

    We have good representation in the Neandertal genomes of the DNA sites that affect light skin in Europeans. So far it appears that the Neandertals did not carry any of the alleles that are associated with lighter skin in Europe today.

    They did have some changes to the genes that affect pigmentation that are not present in any living people. We speculate that these changes may have lightened skin or hair in the Neandertals, but we will not know this until we have experimental evidence about them. If this is correct, then the Neandertals will represent another case of convergence toward light pigmentation in the high latitude geographic range.

  • Blond as a window to ancient pigmentation variation

    Sat, 2012-05-05 13:57 -- John Hawks

    Blond hair is relatively common in island Melanesia, even though the skin pigmentation of Melanesian peoples is relatively dark. Eimear Kenny and colleagues report in this week's Science that one SNP variant in the gene TYRP1 explains a high proportion of the variance in hair color in this population [1].

    Resequencing of TYRP1 exons detected a single previously unknown polymorphism, a C-to-T transition at chr9:12,694,273 (GrCH37/hg19), that corresponds to a predicted arginine-to-cysteine mutation (R93C) in exon 2 of TYRP1 at amino acid position 93 (TT in blond- and CT or CC in dark-haired individuals)...[more on assessing effect in a GWA panel].

    We genotyped R93C in 918 Solomon Islanders for whom we had measured hair pigmentation with spectrometry. A recessive model provided the best fit for the data, and R93C genotypes accounted for 46.4% of the variance in hair color (linear regression; P = 2.19 × 10−90; Fig. 1D and table S2). The frequency of the 93C allele in the Solomon Islands is 0.26, and genotyping of R93C in an additional 941 individuals from 52 worldwide populations revealed that the 93C allele is rare or absent outside of Oceania (table S3). Furthermore, we found no evidence for recent gene flow from Europe (i.e., admixture) (figs. S5 and S6) nor a strong signature of recent positive selection for the 93C allele (figs. S9 to S11).

    This paper is very short, only a few paragraphs. When I read through it, I got one impression of the results, and that impression changed greatly when I looked into the supplement.

    Some underreported facts:

    1. The blondness allele is present in all the samples from the Solomon Islands, at a frequency as high as 49% in a large sample from Malaita. In this study, the authors found it at its lowest frequency in "Polynesian outlier" islands near the Solomons.

    2. The allele was not found in any of the HGDP samples, even when they were genotyped specifically for this study. That includes the "Melanesian" and "Papuan" samples. These two are relatively small in HGDP (n=14 and n=16 in this study) but even so would probably present this allele were it present at anything like the frequency in the Solomon Islands.

    3. The text of the paper reports that a recessive effect model is the best explanation for the relation of hair pigmentation and TYRP1 genotypes. The supplement shows that the recessive model is only very slightly better than a "codominant" model, as it only explains an additional 3 percent of the variance. In the best case considering this allele along with age and geographic origin of the individuals, only 48% of the variation of hair pigmentation can be explained. That leaves 52% to be explained by other genetic and nongenetic causes. There may be a lot of genetic background, which may include more alleles of large effect.

    4. Skin pigmentation varies greatly among these Solomon Islands samples, with more than a third of the overall variance in skin pigmentation explained by geography. The tables don't make it clear how pigmentation is patterned by geography. The TYRP1 allele that is the subject of this paper does not explain much variation in skin pigmentation.

    5. Sex and age have strong effects on hair pigmentation in this sample, but not on skin pigmentation. Again, these point to background genetic factors. Many populations have sex and age effects on hair pigmentation, so some of the additional causal factors may be widely shared.

    I began looking more deeply into TYRP1 R93C for a couple of reasons. The prehistory of human populations in the Solomon Islands goes back more than 30,000 years. Because this allele is not present in mainland Asian populations, as far as we know, but it is present thoughout the Solomons, suggests that it may have become common at or near the initial founding of this population. The LD pattern around the mutation likewise suggests that it has been segregating in this population for a long time. The data are consistent with the idea that blond phenotypes were present in the Solomon Islands as early as the initial colonists who founded the population.

    It will be interesting to look further into nearby populations to see if it characterized early colonists more broadly. Blond phenotypes occur very commonly in Aboriginal Australians, also age-dependent in expression, as many children have blond hair that darkens with age. Other Melanesian islands, such as Vanuatu and Fiji, also have a high incidence of blondness. For the islands, I expect that the same allele will be responsible for a similar fraction of the variance. For Australia, I would guess that this allele is also present, but with 40,000 years of evolution, there could well be a more diverse genetic explanation.

    Pigmentation variation in Eurasia is clearly a phenotype that has been affected both by recent positive selection and selection on old, standing genetic variants. Europe and East Asia today each have a dozen or more alleles that individually have strong effects on skin, hair, or eye pigmentation. Many of the alleles common in one region are rare in the other. These are well explained by recent selection on pigmentation; if there had been no selection on pigmentation, the populations would not show as extensive a pattern of differences, and new alleles would not have reached high frequencies. But if we had only a single mutation at 30 percent distinguishing one of these populations, which had arisen as early as 30,000 years ago, we would not have a strong case for selection.

    In Melanesia, we have just the opening sketch of pigmentation variation. We know that there is substantial variation in skin and hair pigmentation, and that one mutation unique to this part of the world explains a large fraction (but still a minority) of the variance in hair pigment. The other genes that contribute to variation in hair and skin pigmentation are not known. Possibly, skin pigmentation variation among the geographic regions in this study may reflect late prehistoric migration of people through this region, as agriculture moved into the area and Polynesia was settled. But the genetic part of this story remains to be demonstrated.

    Both Asia and Europe have a similar pattern of selection which has favored new alleles along with some old, standing alleles. Across the temperate regions of Europe, East Asia, and the Americas, it is plausible that the disadvantages of dark pigment for vitamin D production manifested themselves. It is also plausible across these regions that the advantages of dark pigment as protection from UV radiation would have been relaxed, allowing sexual selection on pigmentation to play an important role.

    The evidence here suggests that this allele in Melanesia has not been recently selected from a new mutation. Additionally weighing against recent selection is the observation that the mutation acts recessively on hair pigmentation -- recent selection is much more likely for mutations with dominant or additive effects.

    Together, these observations suggest that variation in human pigmentation emerged in stages. Some genes, such as ASIP, have old alleles that explain some of the variation in pigmentation today and are geographically ubiquitous, in Africa, Eurasia, and the Americas. This genetic variation was older than the Late Pleistocene. Such genes (ASIP is probably an example) today have alleles associated with darker pigment that are common in sub-Saharan Africa. Probably many other genes have variation within Africa that are part of the ancestral pigment variation of humanity. As people dispersed throughout the world, mixing with archaic humans, they carried some of these pigmentation variants along with them.

    What's interesting is that even though some of these ancient alleles lighten skin pigmentation, they remain segregating in today's light-pigmented populations. They were not selected to fixation, even though there was plenty of time for them to increase toward fixation, and even though strong selection on pigmentation appears to have been present in many high-latitude populations. Later mutations that lighten pigmentation were strongly selected in these same populations, some reaching very high frequencies, while the old mutations still were not selected to fixation.

    The story is of course more complex than a simple count of standing and new mutations. Some genetic changes that lighten pigmentation may have countervailing negative effects. Solving the problem of becoming light pigmented in just the right way may really be a different problem in different populations. Founder effects may have shifted the genetic background of early Eurasian populations just enough to create strong path-dependence for later mutations, allowing some to proceed rapidly and blocking the rise of others.

    The story of TYRP1 gives a new perspective on the early evolution of pigmentation outside Africa. Here is a novel allele that originated within the earliest colonists to Oceania, which affects hair pigmentation strongly, in a population that was always low-latitude. It did not come from earlier archaic humans as far as we know so far (not in the Denisova genome). It may have become common by a founder effect. We cannot rule out selection, such as social or sexual selection, as a cause of its initial spread or current geographic distribution, but we have no genetic evidence in favor of such selection. We know from the data that there must be many other loci that affect pigmentation in this population.

    This may have been much like the original pigmentation genetics of early modern human populations. It may also be much like the pattern that accounts for pigmentation variation within Africa today. It is not a simple story in which a few loci of large effect explain the evolutionary pattern. It is a story in which a substantial store of segregating variation persists within populations for tens of thousands of years.

    Why does that matter? Here's one reason: We're looking at possible pigmentation variants in archaic humans, and we have counted many of them. Anyone might begin this project with the presumption that Neandertals and Denisovans had pigmentation variants that were fixed relative to living people. In that context, it would be surprising to find that they had not introgressed.

    But if all these ancient populations had a large store of small-effect variants affecting pigmentation, a mutation that we find in one individual might have been rare in the population. The TYRP1 R93C allele varies from 5 to 50 percent in the Solomon Islands samples. We already know that the MC1R coding variant in some Neandertals is not found in the Vindija genomes. Variation in pigmentation loci may have been ubiquitous in human populations, with few fixed alleles separating populations. The ancient landscape was more like ASIP than SLC24A5.


    References

    Synopsis: 
    Pigmentation genetics in the Solomon Islands gives some perspective on the process of phenotype evolution
  • The Neandertal pigmentation race

    Mon, 2012-03-19 23:41 -- John Hawks

    As regular readers know, I've been detailing some of our work on the pigmentation genes of Neandertal and Denisova genomes. I got interrupted in the middle of my posts on that work undertaken by my undergraduate students, but we've got some interesting results. I've got to get going faster writing them up here, because we now have some competition.

    Traci Watson covers a new, short paper that infers pigmentation phenotypes for Neandertals, the Denisova genome, as well as several modern humans with whole-genome data: "Were Some Neandertals Brown-Eyed Girls?"

    One complication is that traits such as hair color are controlled by multiple genes. To determine the cumulative impact of multiple genes on one trait, the authors assumed they could simply add together the impact of individual genes. The female Neandertal known as Vi33.26, for example, had seven genes for brown eyes, one for "not-brown" eyes, three for blue eyes, and four for "not-blue eyes." By the researchers' reckoning, that means a six-gene balance in favor of brown and a negative balance for blue, so Vi33.26's eyes were probably brown. According to this method, all three Neandertals had a dark complexion and brown eyes, and although one was red-haired, two sported brown locks.

    I'm quoted very extensively in the article, and my basic attitude is that the new paper's results don't match what my students have found. So, time to continue my series!

  • Anthropology 105, lecture 7: Eyes

    Sat, 2012-02-25 17:03 -- John Hawks
    Synopsis: 
    Illustrating phylogeny and evolutionary convergence using trichromacy and eye development

    Out of all the lectures in the course, this was one of my favorites to put together. I return to the topic of evolutionary developmental biology, first raised in the "Vertebrae" lecture, by extending from the Hox genes to toolkit genes, focusing on the role of Pax6 in eye development. Again, we see how model organisms like fruit flies and zebrafish are relevant to understanding human biology.

    Then, we zoom closer into the phylogeny of primates, considering the superfamilies and reminding students that New World monkeys, Old World monkeys and hominoids are all anthropoid primates. The anthropoids have a tremendously interesting difference with respect to color vision. Many New World monkey species have trichromacy in some individuals but many remain able only to see two colors. This is because one of the genes that codes for color-detecting pigments has different alleles. Heterozygotes can see three colors, homozygotes can see only two. By contrast, Old World monkeys and hominoids have trichromatic vision by virtue of a gene duplication in our ancestry, which generated two different genes that diverged in sequence to be sensitive to different wavelengths of light.

    The convergence of trichromatic vision reflects its adaptive value in anthropoids, which emerged from diurnal activity pattern, the need to detect young leaves for their protein content and low toxicity, and a coevolution of color vision with mating displays. At the same time, owl monkeys lost two-color vision in parallel with lorises and galagos, in this case reflecting the low adaptive value of color vision in nocturnal primates.

    Last, I discuss the polymorphism of eye color in living humans, which emerges due to the regulation of OCA2 in the surface layers of the iris.

    Study questions: 
    • Would you predict that the common ancestors of New World monkeys, Old World monkeys and hominoids had three-color or two-color vision?
    • Why is two-color vision so often lost in lineages that are active nocturnally?
    • Would it be possible to use zebrafish and fruit flies as models to understand human biology if we did not share common ancestors with these species? Why or why not?
  • Which population in the 1000 Genomes Project samples has the most Neandertal similarity?

    Wed, 2012-02-08 01:14 -- John Hawks

    Last December I began writing about an analysis of introgression in the 1000 Genomes Project samples ("Neandertal introgression, 1000 Genomes style"). I left everybody in a bit of suspense, partly because my writing computer was unexpectedly replaced before winter vacation, and partly because of my extensive travel in January.

    I'm catching up this week before I go to Ann Arbor, Michigan next week for a talk and visit with many friends. It's a good time to give readers some status updates on the analyses because the release of the high-coverage Denisova genome today will allow us to do some very deep checks on some of the comparisons we've carried out.

    Picking up where I left off, in the last post I emphasized that the individual genomes represented in the 1000 Genomes Project samples in Europe and East Asia have a surplus of derived SNP alleles that they share with the Vindija Vi33.16 genome. That surplus compared to genomes in the African population samples represents the evidence for Neandertal ancestry in those populations.

    Comparison of shared Neandertal derived variants in African, Chinese and European samples

    Admixed populations, including African-Americans and Puerto Ricans, shared Neandertal derived SNP alleles in the fraction expected for their African and non-African fractions of ancestry.

    Comparison of shared Neandertal derived variants in ASW, YRI and CEU samples

    As I also pointed out, the population samples in Europe and East Asia are not identical in the number of these shared derived variants. The difference between individuals can be caused by differences in the fraction of their genealogy that traces to Neandertals. The difference may also be caused by other aspects of the individuals' genealogy, if for example some aspect of population history has led to discrepancies in the fraction of ancient variations these people share with a Neandertal genome by incomplete lineage sorting.

    Here is the comparison of East Asian samples (Japanese, Han Chinese in Beijing, and Han Chinese originating in South China) and European samples (Tuscans, British, Finn and CEU samples, along with a handful of Spanish):

    Comparison of shared Neandertal derived variants in East Asian and European 1000 Genomes Project samples

    The Europeans average a bit more Neandertal than Asians. The within-population differences between individuals are large, and constitute noise as far as our comparisons between populations are concerned. At present, we can take as a hypothesis that Europeans have more Neandertal ancestry than Asians. If this is true, we can further guess that Europeans may have mixed with Neandertals as they moved into Europe, constituting a second process of population mixture beyond that shared by European and Asian ancestors.

    As we look more closely at the particular gene regions shared between each individual and the Neandertal, we will be able to consider the approximate time that they shared an ancestor for each gene region. That will allow us to distinguish incomplete lineage sorting (ILS) from introgression, although the two will overlap to some extent. We will rely on that test to examine hypotheses about the time and place of population mixture.

    The difference between Europeans and Asians when we lump all the samples together is not as interesting as the differences we can see among the samples within each of those regions. For example, here are British people compared to Tuscans:

    Comparison of shared Neandertal derived variants in British and Tuscan samples

    The Tuscans have the highest level of Neandertal similarity of any of the 1000 Genomes Project samples. They have around a half-percent more Neandertal similarity than Brits or Finns in these samples. The CEU sample is slightly elevated compared to Brits and Finns as well.

    It is tempting to interpret these differences as a north-south cline in Neandertal ancestry. I wouldn't jump too quickly on this idea, because Holocene population movements in Europe are now known to have covered up or erased a substantial fraction of the Upper Paleolithic gene pool. If we have a bonus of extra Neandertal ancestry in southern Europe, we need to explain how that cline persisted across subsequent history. Still, the difference is statistically very strong and deserves some explanation.

    Likewise, the populations within East Asia have some differences in Neandertal similarity. Here is the comparison of Han Chinese, with the Beijing versus South China origins separated out:

    Comparison of shared Neandertal derived variants in CHB and CHS samples

    North China has a bit more Neandertal, on average, than South China according to these samples. These are all identified as ethnic Han Chinese, so I expect that the comparison would be much more interesting if some minority populations had been examined. The "cline" here seems opposite in direction compared to the European case. I can add that the Japanese sample is largely intermediate between the CHB and CHS, with an average closer to the Beijing sample.

    If there was one thing that surprised me in the comparisons, it was this:

    Comparison of shared Neandertal derived variants in Luhya and Yoruba samples

    Yoruba have substantially more Neandertal similarity than Luhya. This may seem counter-intuitive, because the geographic location of Luhya in East Africa might seem better placed for Neandertal similarity to appear, whether through ancient population structure and ILS or through recent gene flow or backmigration into Africa of Neandertal descendants.

    Instead, it looks like the Yoruba are the recipients of Neandertal genes, whether by means of ancient population structure or introgression and recent trans-Saharan gene flow. I personally think both factors are involved, but again their relative importance will be determined by comparing individual gene regions.

    In this vein, it is useful to outline the hypothesis of differential ILS within African samples. We now know from examination of genetic variation within Africa today that some of today's diversity can be traced to ancient population structure in Middle Pleistocene African populations. For example, Neandertals could be more closely related to some African populations than others today because Neandertals actually exchanged genes with some ancient African populations. Or Neandertals might have sprung from one African population among many who lived 250,000 years ago. If some of these ancient populations persisted and contributed genes to different present-day African populations, those populations would share different fractions of genes with a Neandertal genome.

    I expect we will learn a substantial amount about African population structure in the MSA by using these Neandertal-similar regions of the genome. It's like having a probe that can trace the movement of people across Africa more than 100,000 years ago. As we combine the archaic genome data with our growing picture of diverse lineages in Africa today, we may discover ancient populations that are not apparent archaeologically. Again, genetics is giving us a totally new picture of the diversity and population dynamics of ancient people.

    Next: Which Neandertal-derived variants are shared between regions, and which are unique to one region? I touched on this question last spring by using genotype data. Now, we have sequences capable of telling us much more.

    Synopsis: 
    Europe has a touch more Neandertal than East Asia; Tuscans have more than any other European sample
  • Measuring population subdivision

    Sun, 2011-11-27 22:58 -- John Hawks
    Synopsis: 
    The statistical measurement of differentiation among populations is Fst

    The basic measure of genetic difference between two populations is the statistic, FST. In genetics, the term F generally stands for ``inbreeding'', which tends to reduce genetic variation in the population. Genetic variation can be measured by heterozygosity, and so F generally expresses a reduction in the heterozygosity in the population. FST is the reduction in heterozygosity in subpopulations compared to the total population of which they are part.

    To estimate FST, take the following steps:

    1. Find the allele frequencies for each subpopulation.
    2. Find the average allele frequencies for the total population.
    3. Calculate the heterozygosity (2pq) for each subpopulation.
    4. Calculate the average of these subpopulation heterozygosities. This is HS.
    5. Calculate the heterozygosity based on the total population allele frequencies. This is HT.
    6. Finally, calculate FST=(HT-HS)/HT.

    Don't forget that the HS term is the average across all subpopulations.

    Example: The gene SLC24A5 is a key part of the melanin expression pathway, which contributes to skin and hair pigmentation. A SNP that is strongly associated with lighter skin pigment in Europe is rs1426654. The SNP has two alleles, A and G, with G being associated with light skin, at a frequency of 100% in Utah European-Americans. The SNP varies in frequency in populations in the Americas with mixed African and American Indian ancestry. A sample in Mexico had 38% A and 62% G; in Puerto Rico the frequencies were 59% A and 41% G, and a sample of African-Americans from Charleston had 19% A with 81% G. What is the FST in this example?

  • Why do people differ in skin color?

    Wed, 2011-11-16 08:43 -- John Hawks
    Synopsis: 
    Pigmentation in humans reflects UV radiation and its effects on biology and health in recent human evolution.

    The color of human skin is determined by the amount of two pigments, eumelanin and pheomelanin. These pigments are the basic ones underlying all kinds of coloration in animals — even blue colors like those in the irises of blue eyes result from light reflecting above a layer of dark brown-black eumelanin. The darkest human skin and hair tones contain an abundance of eumelanin, while brown and reddish hair and freckles of the skin contain a large proportion of pheomelanin.

    Genes can influence skin and hair pigmentation in many ways. The overall color of the skin results from both the number of pigment-making cells (called melanocytes) and their level of activity. Most skin is capable of tanning, which means that exposure to UV radiation induces greater melanin production. Today, more than 20 genes are known to influence skin pigmentation in humans. Genetic changes can alter the development and migration of melanocytes, the regulation and expression of genes that generate melanin, or the chemical steps in the synthesis of the pigments themselves. As a result of such genetic changes, two people who live in the same environment may have very different shades or patterns of skin coloration.

    Some of the genes that influence skin pigmentation also cause variation in hair color or eye color. For example, variation in the gene OCA2 explains most of the variation in eye color in Europeans. People with blue eyes are mostly homozygotes for an allele of this gene; these people also tend to have slightly lighter skin due to this allele. Likewise, the variation in the gene MC1R explains some of the variation in skin color in Europe, but also explains a large proportion of variation in hair color. Red and blond hair each result from some of the distinctive alleles of MC1R.

    Dark skin evolved in ancient humans

    Relatively light-skinned populations include the native inhabitants of Europe, West Asia, East Asia, the Arctic, and the Americas. The lightest skin tones are found in Europe, while the darkest are in tropical Africa, southern India, Indonesia and Melanesia, and Australia. The level of skin pigmentation shows a close correspondence with latitude — people living near the equator tend to have dark skin, while light-skinned people live nearer the poles.

    Selection on skin color depends on the level of UV radiation.

    Cline of skin color in global human populations

    Skin pigmentation correlates with latitude because it serves as a defense against UV radiation. Like all solar radiation, UV is more intense at lower latitudes, where the sun is more often directly overhead. High-energy UV light damages and destroys the molecules that skin is made of. In sufficient amounts, this UV radiation can cause severe burns, that are painful and leave the skin unable to maintain its normal protective and cooling functions. UV radiation also can cause long-term damage to the DNA of skin cells, resulting in dangerous skin cancers.

    Dark-skinned people have a lower incidence of skin cancers in most countries compared to people with less pigmentation. The highest skin cancer rates in the world are suffered by people of European origin who currently live in equatorial places; Australia is presently the highest. Still, skin cancer may be a relatively weak cause of natural selection, because deaths from skin cancer tend to occur later than the mid-30s, relatively late in most peoples' reproductive lifespan.

    Dark skin reduces the incidence of skin cancer and sunburn.

    Possibly more important was the incidence of heat stroke in severely sunburned people. Today, relatively few people in Western societies succumb to heat exhaustion and heat stroke today, but this was potentially a great danger in the past and remains so in some places today. This danger of sunburn especially influences children, whose smaller masses allow less room for error in water loss and overheating.

    Some evidence suggests that dark skin pigmentation first appeared in humans within the last 500,000 years. African apes are polymorphic in skin coloration. Chimpanzees in particular are variable — some chimpanzees have quite light skin, and others have very dark skin; skin color tends to darken with age in these primates. But humans who live in equatorial Africa today show very little variation in skin color. Dark skin has been strongly selected in that population. One gene that contributes to skin pigmentation phenotypes, MC1R, shows evidence for positive selection in Africans sometime between 200,000 and 1 million years ago [1]. This date is interesting — humans first appeared nearly 2 million years ago, and our divergence from chimpanzees was far earlier, at over 6 million years ago. So the evolution of dark skin pigmentation was continuing at a relatively recent date. One suggestion is that people lost their body fur sometime during the last million years. With fur, there was no survival benefit to dark skin, but exposed skin creates the susceptibilities that select for darker pigmentation.

    Light skin pigmentation evolved recently

    Light skin pigmentation is a more difficult problem than dark pigmentation. The advantages of dark skin are clear, and genetic evidence shows that dark skin has been around for a long time. But light skin evolved relatively recently.

    The variation among light-skinned populations helps to illuminate the problem. Europeans and Asians today are broadly similar in their range of pigmentation. Northern Europeans average a bit lighter in skin color than north Asians, but the ranges of variation in pigmentation greatly overlap. Still, there are regional differences. For example, both hair and eye coloration are more polymorphic in Europeans than in living Asians. These phenotypes suggest that different alleles may affect pigmentation in these populations.

    Recently, geneticists have identified more than a dozen different genes influencing skin coloration in Europeans and Asians. The variation in pigmentation associated with these genes is mostly explained by new alleles under recent positive selection. For example, northern Europeans carry a new allele from a gene called SLC24A5 at a frequency near 100 percent. This allele has spread as far west as Spain, and as far east as Pakistan; it is also common in North Africa. Yet, the new mutation originated very recently, approximately 6000 years ago. Likewise, a gene called DCT has a new allele common in China, which appears to have originated less than 10,000 years ago. Both Europeans and Asians have 10 or more alleles influencing their light skin pigmentation, but these alleles are only rarely shared between these populations. Variation in eye color in Europeans is mostly explained by a recnet mutation in the gene OCA2. This same gene has another allele under recent selection in China, which does not strongly influence eye color. European hair color variation is mostly explained by variation in MC1R; this gene has many new alleles in Europe, but does not greatly influence hair color in East Asia. In every case, the new mutations occurred recently and have not yet had time to spread and proliferate from one end of Eurasia to the other.

    The recent evolution of light skin can only be explained by a strong pattern of selection favoring it. Scientists have focused on ways that dark skin may create disadvantages for people in places with lower natural UV radiation. One way that UV radiation is necessary is in the metabolism of vitamin D. Humans synthesize vitamin D in the skin, where exposure to UV radiation allows the transformation of precursor molecules into the necessary vitamin. Vitamin D is necessary for normal bone development, and people who suffer from a deficiency of vitamin D get a disorder known as rickets, characterized by deformation of the bones. Such abnormalities in bone growth can be potent causes of selection, either by decreasing mating attractiveness or by impeding normal activities. Such problems can extend to reproduction itself, as a pelvis deformed by rickets can make it impossible for a woman to give birth normally.

    There is some evidence that dark skin is less capable of maintaining vitamin D metabolism. Most notably, people with darker skin living at higher latitudes in historic times, such as in London, apparently have suffered a higher incidence of rickets. However, today people acquire vitamin D primarily through dietary supplements, including dairy foods enriched with the vitamin, so that dietary differences between peoples of different skin tones in Western nations may partially account for differences in rickets incidence. Nevertheless, vitamin D metabolism remains the most prominent hypothesis to account for the distribution of light skin in the northern parts of the world.

    Even so, some differences in skin color are probably explained by other factors. For example, northern Europeans are markedly lighter in skin color than people who live at the same latitude in East Asia. Many Europeans also have less melanin in their hair, which ranges in tone from blond to brown and red, while most high-latitude Asians have black hair.

    It is possible that some of these differences may be the result of sexual selection, as different populations create different long-term patterns in sexual attractiveness and mating. Scientists have also applied sexual selection to explain differences in hair form among populations, from short and kinky to long and straight, and differences in hair color among equatorial populations. In all such cases, there is no ready environmental explanation for the differences. Even so, human cultures are very flexible and change rapidly, especially when compared to biological evolution, so that a stable sexual preference for such a characteristic as skin color or hair color, expressed over many hundreds of generations, would appear to conflict with the rapid cultural changes that affect mating preferences.


    References

    Study questions: 
    1. Pigmentation varies among other species of primates, with different coat colors and color patterns. Do you think the same explanations work for these primates as for humans?
    2. Some humans in the distant past lived at high latitudes, like the Neandertals. What would you expect about their pigmentation?
  • Eye pigmentation and allele frequencies

    Tue, 2011-09-06 00:46 -- John Hawks
    Synopsis: 
    A single nucleotide polymorphism is associated with blue eyes in Europeans, leading to explanation of genetic associations.

    Eye pigmentation in humans varies along a spectrum of colors from dark brown, through lighter brown, hazel, and green, to light blue. These differences are caused by variation in the content of the dark pigment, eumelanin, in the layers of the iris. Several genes are involved in the variation in color, but most of the lighter colors require a change in the expression of a gene called OCA2.

    Photo credit: blue and brown by Look Into My Eyes, on Flickr. Mixed eye color can sometimes occur, due to somatic mutations that affect the pigment expression in the iris.

    The lighter eye colors are most common in Europe, and in northern Europe in particular. Much of the variation in eye pigmentation in this population is associated with one area of the genome, on chromosome 15 in the region of the genes HERC2 and OCA2. The strongest association is with a single site, 28365618 nucleotides from the beginning of chromosome 15 in the current draft of the human genome. At this site, some human sequences carry an A, and others have a G.

    This kind of variation is called a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). The word polymorphism meaning "many forms", but in fact this SNP has only two different forms, or alleles in human populations.

    There are millions of SNPs in the human genome. When they sequence many people, geneticists often find SNPs they have never noticed before, and enter them into a catalog called dbSNP. Each SNP gets a catalog number, beginning with the letters "rs". This one, associated with eye color in Europeans, is known as rs12913832 (dbSNP link).

    We know that rs12913832 is associated with variation in eye color because it has been genotyped in thousands of people. Blue-eyed people are very likely to carry two G's here. Why this SNP is associated with eye color is not yet clear. OCA2 is essential to forming normal pigmentation, but rs12913832 does not change the amino acid sequence of this gene. In fact, it lies within another gene, HERC2. The SNP may change the regulation of OCA2, or it may be linked on the same chromosome sequence to another mutation that does. Or the activity of HERC2 may itself affect pigmentation. Right now, scientists simply don't know.

    Finding a genetic association, like a correlation, is not the same as finding a cause. An association doesn't necessarily tell us that the genetic change caused a change in the body; it merely indicates that one form of the gene is common in people with a particular trait.

    An association may give some hint about the history of a trait. In the case of eye color, blue eyes are most common in northern Europe, and occur more rarely across southern Europe, north Africa, and West Asia. The G allele of rs12913832 has roughly the same distribution:

    Allele frequencies of rs12913832 in human populations surveyed as part of the Human Genome Diversity Project. Map courtesy of HGDP Selection Browser.

    The G allele is most common in northern Europe, and is rare or absent in most of Africa and East Asia. However, the indigenous people of South America actually have fairly high frequencies (up to 30-40%) for this allele. Those populations do not have blue eyes at any appreciable frequency. What can explain this discrepancy?

    Again, a genetic association is not the same as a genetic cause. This SNP allele may be linked to blue eyes in Europe because of its history: Another mutation that causes blue eyes may have happened on a copy of chromosome 15 that carried this SNP allele. Meanwhile, a different copy of chromosome 15 carrying this SNP allele but unrelated to eye pigmentation was in the population that entered the New World some 15,000 years ago, and became common in the ancestors of South American populations.

    Understanding the history of human movements helps us to uncover the genetic causes of traits. In this case, the SNP allele reflects two different histories in western Eurasia and in the New World.

    Study questions: 
    1. Use the genome browser to look around rs12913832. Use the tools to zoom out until you can see the gene OCA2. How far away is OCA2 from this SNP?
    2. The population of the United States was not surveyed in the project that gave rise to the map above. What do you predict about the allele frequencies of rs12913832 in the present U.S. population?
    3. What is the frequency of the trait blue eyes in your classroom?
  • Violet eyes

    Sun, 2011-03-27 18:03 -- John Hawks

    Oh, I suppose I should go ahead and link to that Elizabeth Taylor mutation article:

    Double rows of eyelashes are usually the result of a mutation at FOXC2, a gene that influences all kinds of tissue development in embryos. FOXC2 mutations are thought to be responsible for, among other things, lymphedema-distichiasis syndrome, a hereditary disease that can cause disorders of the lymphatic system in addition to double eyelashes.

    It's interesting, in its way. But I really want to pick a bone with this:

    I was slightly crushed, then, to discover that, by most official accounts, Taylor's eyes were actually a deep blue that appeared purple when enhanced by lighting and makeup. (Truly violet eyes occur only in albinos.)

    Blue eyes are blue because of the quality of light available for diffraction. There's no blue pigment in them, just as there is no blue pigment in the sea to make it blue. (Amusement park water is a different story...). This is why we can talk sensibly about eyes that always seem to be changing in color.

    I see no reason to deny the woman her violet eyes. Heck, in my yard the violets (the sweet yard-growing kind, not the African kind) aren't even violet! Dark blue eyes with a touch of eumelanin in a shallower configuration might not match the crayon for color, but could easily be violet to anyone at Richard Burton distance.

Pages

Subscribe to pigmentation

Neandertals

For years, I've worked on their bones. Now I'm working on their genes. Read more about the science studying these ancient people.

Denisova

From a finger bone of an ancient human came the record of a completely unexpected population. My lab is working on the science of the Denisova genome.

Acceleration

The advent of agriculture caused natural selection to speed up greatly in humans. We're uncovering some of the ways that populations have rapidly changed during the last 10,000 years.

Malapa

Just outside Johannesburg, the Malapa site is producing some of the most exciting finds in human evolution. This site is the headquarters of the Malapa Soft Tissue Project.