introgression

The rate of neutral mutations varies across the genome. When studying a single gene, this variation in rates is not especially important -- it is generally possible to obtain an estimate of the neutral rate for a single locus by comparing just that locus among closely related species.

But some comparisons involve looking at the pattern of variation among different loci. For instance, testing hypotheses about the ancestral populations leading to living species (like the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees) involves comparing the amount of divergence among many independent loci. The variance in divergence times among loci gives an estimate of inbreeding in the ancestral population.

I discussed this particular example two years ago this week, after the paper that proposed extended hybridization between ancestral hominids and chimpanzees. The conclusion of the paper was that the X chromosome displays much less divergence between humans and chimpanzees than the autosomes, and this might reflect a late introgression of the X chromosome into hominids from another population that (mostly) was ancestral to chimpanzees. The autosomes, by contrast, averaged very old genetic divergences, although there was substantial variance. As I concluded then, the data look consistent with a large population size in the human-chimpanzee ancestor species, coupled with greater selection on the X chromosome. The interpretation of large population size (or alternatively, the interpretation of long-term population structure) comes from the low inferred inbreeding in that ancestral population -- which caused the variance in divergence dates among loci.

But there is another reason for a large variance in divergence dates: variance in mutation rates. Whenever mutation rates vary among loci, this variance adds to the variance among loci in their between-species genetic differences -- that is, the substitution rate. And as long as we are excluding selected sites (as we always try to do for these kinds of comparisons) we will overestimate the genetic diversity in ancestral species whenever the mutation rate varies among loci.

A new paper by Svitlana Tyakucheva and colleagues looks at human and macaque genomes to find patterns underlying the variance in mutation rates among regions of the genome. They find that a number of factors may cause such variations, including chemical factors like the CG content of the genome, functional causes such as male versus female rates of recombination, and large-scale structural causes such as telomeric proximity:

While a complete understanding of all biological mechanisms leading to variation in neutral substitution rates across the genome remains elusive, it is plausible that at least some of these mechanisms are conserved over relatively long evolutionary distances. For instance, both mouse-specific and rat-specific substitution rates are positively correlated with rodent-primate substitution rates [14], suggesting shared mechanisms persisting over ca. 90 million years [15]. Additionally, a positive correlation exists in substitution rates of homologous X- and Y-chromosomal introns that diverged from each other ca. 100 million years ago [16] (Tykucheva et al. 2008: R76).

Their finding that male recombination is an important contributor to mutation rate heterogeneity puts the focus on the X chromosome -- which has little recombination in males -- as unusual. X versus autosomal position did not explain a large fraction of the variance in this study (only around 2 percent, controlling for other factors) but the deviation was in the right direction to help account for the low X chromosome divergence between humans and chimpanzees.

Altogether in this study, a large fraction of variation in the human-macaque substitution variability could be explained by phenomena that affect the rate of mutations, including the structural and functional factors listed above as well as the corresponding homologous variability between mice and rats, and dogs and cattle. If these variations were explained by inbreeding in the human-macaque ancestral species, they would be random with respect to the dog-cow or mouse-rat divergences, and with respect to structural causes. So current estimates of the effective sizes of human-chimpanzee and other ancestral populations are almost certainly inflated. The amount of inflation is not clear, but a good estimate will require correcting for a large number of factors -- a complicated analysis.

Since the date of the human-chimpanzee divergence depends on our assessment of the diversity within the human-chimpanzee ancestral population, it may be a while before we can settle the issue of human-chimpanzee divergence time. That may or may not provide hope for Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, and Ardipithecus kadabba -- all supposed hominids that would predate 5 million years ago, the current best genetic estimate of the human-chimpanzee divergence time. To be sure, if the date is simply in error, that error might encompass older dates consistent with a 7-million-year divergence. But I'm not sure we should believe that the error is biased toward an older divergence -- "error" might lean in either direction, and a younger species divergence remains possible.

References:

Tyakucheva S, Makova KD, Karro JE, Hardison RC, Miller W, Chiaromonte F. 2008. Human-macaque comparisons illuminate variation in neutral substitution rates. Genome Biol 9:R76. doi:10.1186/gb-2008-9-4-r76

That's the thrust of a technical comment by Graham Coop and colleagues, now online in Molecular Biology and Evolution. The letter refers to the extraction of FOXP2 from two Neandertal specimens from El Sidrón, by Johannes Krause and colleagues, reported last year (I wrote about the paper here).

First, the bad news. The current letter raises the prospect of contamination. Notably, the controls applied by Krause et al. (2007) may be relatively weak evidence against contamination, because of polymorphism within large human comparative samples. The tests rely on the assumption that there is little DNA from living humans in the samples. But if we cannot distinguish Neandertal from human DNA with great accuracy, then we will be mistaken some proportion of the time. Krause et al.'s test, based on derived human alleles absent from the Neandertal genome draft, can still go wrong if the human contaminants happen to have all the ancestral (non-derived) human alleles.

Well, that seems to be the story these days with Neandertal DNA extraction. No test of contamination is good enough. (And remember, that every "test" of contamination is really a procedure for excluding the hypothesis that ancient sequences are identical to recent ones.)

Now, the more interesting news. Coop and colleagues verify that the selective sweep affecting human FOXP2 was indeed recent -- they estimate 42,000 years ago:

To demonstrate this, we estimated the time of the most recent common ancestor (tMRCA) of the selected haplotype (see Figure 1), using an approach sometimes called phylogenetic dating (Thomson et al. 2000; Hudson 2007). This method does not make assumptions about demography and selection, but only requires that the mutations in the intron be neutral or nearly neutral. Taking this approach, we obtained a mean tMRCA of 42 Kya (see SOM for details). While there is considerable uncertainty associated with this estimate, it is surprisingly recent if selection took place over 300 Kya (see SOM). In other words, the selective scenario proposed by the authors cannot account readily for patterns of variation in modern humans. Given that we have no power to detect a beneficial substitution that occurred over 250 Kya, (cf. Sabeti et al. 2006) yet we see a footprint of positive selection at FOXP2, the conclusion of a recent selective sweep at FOXP2 is not surprising (Coop et al. 2008:3-4).

FOXP2 is in one of the ENCODE regions, so its variation is pretty well known. This is not a problematic case: it has a very limited amount of variation around it, and has a strong excess of rare alleles, both signs of a recent sweep.

Coop and colleagues suggest that the beneficial human allele spread into Neandertals (or vice versa) by low levels of gene flow coupled with its selective advantage -- in other words, introgression.

They do allow for an alternative -- perhaps the two amino-acid-coding mutations were not the target of selection, but instead some linked locus. This would not erase the necessity of gene flow from Neandertals, but would question whether this gene flow had involved the FOXP2-language scenario, since it might be some linked gene unrelated to language.

(CORRECTION (2008/04/18): If selection were on a linked site, then Neandertals might share the human-derived amino acids as a result of ancient shared ancestry with humans, while the linked selected sweep might be absent in Neandertals, not necessitating any gene flow.)

I doubt this hypothesis of a linked sweep, since the two sites with human-derived substitutions are otherwise very strongly conserved among mammals. This looks like a credible target for recent selection. But the hypothesis of selection on a linked site cannot presently be tested.

So that's the story. It seems very likely that Neandertals got the language gene from us, or us from them, long after many other genes in the two populations diverged. I write "many" rather than "most" because we haven't really been able to assess the proportion of derived alleles shared by humans and Neandertals. The completion of the draft sequence may help, but I'm afraid that the specter of contamination is going to keep on being raised whenever a part of the Neandertal draft genome looks humanlike.

(via Dienekes)

References:

Coop G, Bullaughey K, Luca F, Przeworski M. 2008. The timing of selection at the human FOXP2 gene. Mol Biol Evol (in press) doi:10.1093/molbev/msn091

Bees, dogs, and cattle have all provided interesting evolutionary stories this week. Now it goes to the chickens: A study by Jonas Eriksson and colleagues finds that introgression from grey junglefowl contributed to the gene pool of domesticated chickens:

This study contradicts the assumption that the red junglefowl is the sole wild ancestor of the domestic chicken [5] and provides the first conclusive evidence that other species have contributed to the domestic chicken genome. We therefore propose that the taxonomy of the domestic chicken should be changed from Gallus gallus domesticus to Gallus domesticus to reflect the polyphyletic origin of chicken [27]. The emerging technologies for total genome resequencing can be readily employed to determine if other parts of the chicken genome also originate from other species of junglefowls. Such regions are expected to be enriched for functionally important variants, like yellow skin, because neutral sequences should have been diluted out during the extensive back-crossing that must have taken place after introgression. It is possible that the introgression of yellow skin was facilitated by the fact that it resides on a microchromosome (only 6.4 Mb in size) with a high recombination rate, which reduces the amount of genetic material affected by linkage drag.

The need to reduce linkage to possibly disadvantageous genes around an introgressive allele is an important thing to consider, although breaking such an allele down to a 6 Mb block wouldn't take an terribly long time. The real question is why this trait in particular was brought into chickens -- whether it was linked to desirable pelage characters, or whether it may have had other advantages in survival or productivity under domestication.

These two species are not known to hybridize in the wild.

(via Blog Around the Clock)

(also Greg Laden)

References:

Eriksson J, Larson G, Gunnarsson U, Bed'hom B, Tixier-Boichard M, Strömstedt L, Wright D, Jungerius A, Vereijken A, Randi E, Jensen P, Andersson L. 2008. Identification of the Yellow Skin gene reveals a hybrid origin of the domestic chicken. PLoS Genet 4:e1000010. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000010

Cattle are my favorite comparative model for Pleistocene human evolution, not because I think we necessarily share the same pattern of species and subspecies interactions, but because interbreeding and introgression are so evident among populations that are separated by strong local adaptations. Greg Cochran and I went into some detail about recent cattle phylogeny in our 2006 PaleoAnthropology paper. So I try to follow current research into cattle phylogeography, to see what other interesting things turn up.

The current Current Biology has a brief paper by Alessandro Achilli and colleagues, who sampled complete mtDNA genomes from recent European and Near Eastern cattle:

Archaeological and genetic evidence suggest that modern cattle might result from two domestication events of aurochs (Bos primigenius) in southwest Asia, which gave rise to taurine (Bos taurus) and zebuine (Bos indicus) cattle, respectively [1], [2] and [3]. However, independent domestication in Africa [4] and [5] and East Asia [6] has also been postulated and ancient DNA data raise the possibility of local introgression from wild aurochs [7], [8] and [9]. Here, we show by sequencing entire mitochondrial genomes from modern cattle that extinct wild aurochsen from Europe occasionally transmitted their mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to domesticated taurine breeds. However, the vast majority of mtDNAs belong either to haplogroup I (B. indicus) or T (B. taurus). The sequence divergence within haplogroup T is extremely low (eight-fold less than in the human mtDNA phylogeny [10]), indicating a narrow bottleneck in the recent evolutionary history of B. taurus. MtDNAs of haplotype T fall into subclades whose ages support a single Neolithic domestication event for B. taurus in the Near East, 9-11 thousand years ago (kya).

It is somewhat hard to believe that the mtDNA would be selectively neutral in newly-domesticated cattle, considering their growth and metabolic requirements had radically changed. So I would hold out the possibility that the strong standardization on a single T haplogroup in West Asian cattle may be a direct consequence rather than a side effect of domestication.

The current locations of the introgressive mtDNAs were interesting:

However, the tree also reveals exceptions that radiate much earlier than the T node. MtDNAs #98 and #99 harbour identical sequences (both from the Cabannina - an endangered breed from Liguria, northern Italy) belonging to a novel haplogroup (Q) whose ML time estimate from the QT node is 52.2 ±Ã‚ 8.0 kya. Sequence #100 radiates even earlier from the PQT node (74.4 ±Ã‚ 9.7 kya) and was detected in one animal from Korea, generically classified as 'beef cattle'. Strikingly, the control region of this mtDNA harbours the mutational motif of haplogroup P -- the marker of the extinct aurochs of Northern and Central Europe [8].

Those "introgressive" haplotypes really are not very divergent from the main mtDNA variation of B. taurus -- for instance, European aurochsen would appear to have been relatively genetically homogeneous compared to human mtDNA.

References:

Hawks J, Cochran G. 2006. Dynamics of adaptive introgression from archaic to modern humans. PaleoAnthropology 2006:101-115. Open Access (PDF)

Achilli A and 21 others. 2008. Mitochondrial genomes of extinct aurochs survive in domestic cattle. Curr Biol 18:R157-R158. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.01.019

Mitochondrial phylogeography is a useful tool for the study of wild populations. But applying phylogeography to domestic species is more complicated....

A classic example of the use of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity to infer the history of domestication refers to dogs (Canis familiaris). Four to six mitochondrial haplogroups (Hg) have been described in genetic studies of modern dogs, indicating recurrent domestication or backcrosses between domestic dogs and wild wolves (Canis lupus). Three of the major Hgs are distributed throughout the world, whereas one (D) is restricted to Europe, especially in breeds originating in Scandinavia. Similar patterns of fragmented genetic diversity have been used to argue for local domestication in other species. Such scenario could apply to dogs as they appear as early as 9000 years ago in Scandinavia, and as dogs and wolf remains have been found on the same sites (Malmström et al. 2008:4).

So, they sampled ancient DNA from Neolithic and medieval dog skeletons, to look for the D haplogroup, which would provide evidence that these ancient dogs had a unique and separate origin from other domesticated dogs elsewhere in the world.

Except, it wasn't there.

Our results indicate that Hg frequencies have been altered in Scandinavian dogs since their first arrival. Interestingly, while Hg C is overrepresented in our ancient material, there is a complete lack of the Scandinavian group D in our ancient dataset. Hg D is the one that could support a Scandinavian origin whereas Hg C is suggested to be of Asian origin. Thus, we find no obvious evidence for prehistoric canid domestication in Scandinavia. An external origin of Scandinavian dogs is supported by morphologic data, as even the oldest remains of dogs in Scandinavia were of smaller size than those of prehistoric and extant wolves. While canid domestication may have occurred in other parts of Europe, Scandinavian dogs were likely imported and had experienced a long period of morphological change under human control before they reached the Scandinavian peninsula (Malmström et al. 2008:7).

Fair enough -- the mitochondrial gene pool of Scandinavian dogs has rapidly changed under human influence during the last few thousand years. No word on where the D haplogroup that characterizes today's Scandinavian dogs has come from; whether introgression from local wolves or dogs elsewhere in Europe.

Why does this remind me of human evolution? Well, consider this 2005 paper by Wolfgang Haak and colleagues:

Here we present an analysis of ancient DNA from early European farmers. We successfully extracted and sequenced intact stretches of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 24 out of 57 Neolithic skeletons from various locations in Germany, Austria, and Hungary. We found that 25% of the Neolithic farmers had one characteristic mtDNA type and that this type formerly was widespread among Neolithic farmers in Central Europe. Europeans today have a 150-times lower frequency (0.2%) of this mtDNA type, revealing that these first Neolithic farmers did not have a strong genetic influence on modern European female lineages.

I discussed this paper when it came out, noting that one explanation for the results is selection, either in favor of the N1a type in Neolithic farmers or against it later. The change in frequency in post-Neolithic Europeans is clearly not consistent with drift. On the basis of other genetic loci, migration from other populations cannot explain the catastrophic decline in frequency of the N1a type, which the ancient DNA data show was widespread across central Europe. So, there would appear to have been local selection against N1a.

The Scandinavian dogs are showing the inverse pattern -- a now-common mtDNA type was formerly not present at a measurable frequency, at least in the available sample of ancient dogs. With dogs, of course, there is every reason to expect selection imposed by humans. The only question is whether the selection was directly on the mtDNA itself, or whether the mtDNA has been carried along fortuitously with other selected genes. The extreme inbreeding under recent intensive breeding would allow either scenario -- unlike in humans, where no extreme inbreeding occurred.

I want to point out the parallels and differences clearly, because I'm writing this week about effective population sizes and inbreeding. There are many geneticists who hold out the possibility of extreme degrees of inbreeding in post-Neolithic humans. Genetic, archaeological and historic data -- not to mention common sense -- weigh against this possibility. However, many prefer to maintain a strict view that natural selection occurs rarely, if ever.

(via Dienekes)

References:

Malmström H, Vilà C, Gilbert MTP, Storå J, Willerslev E, Holmlund G, Gotherstrom A. 2008. Barking up the wrong tree: Modern northern European dogs fail to explain their origin. BMC Evol Biol 8:71. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-8-71

Haak W, Forster P, Bramanti B, Matsumura S, Brandt G, Tänzer M, Villems R, Renfrew C, Gronenborn D, Alt KW, Burger J. 2005. Ancient DNA from the first European farmers in 7500-year-old Neolithic sites. Science 310:1016-1018. doi:10.1126/science.1118725

I'm just looking through the January/February 2008 Evolutionary Anthropology, which is all about modern human origins in Africa. The special issue resulted from a conference at Stony Brook, along with a few additions to round out the topic.

I'll have some things to say about these articles, but one thing struck me. I'll describe the problem:

Dan Lieberman's paper, "Speculations about the selective basis for modern human cranial form," discusses five categories of functional requirements that might have been involved in the evolution of the "modern" human cranial anatomy. Each of these imposes distinctive requirements on the form of the head -- not all of which are fully understood -- but all of which changed in ways that parallel the basic changes in cranial form of the Late Pleistocene.

But Tim Weaver and Charles Roseman's paper, "New developments in the genetic evidence for modern human origins," claims that the modern human cranial anatomy originated by genetic drift, without any substantial selection:

Evolutionary quantitative genetic analyses, in fact, show that Neandertal and modern human cranial differences can be explained by genetic drift, making it unlikely, at least for the cranium, that modern human anatomical features were spread by natural selection rather than a range expansion out of Africa. An important point is that these analyses do not simply compare the magnitude of the morphological differences between Neandertals and modern humans; they are multivariate tests of how the patterns of covariation across different cranial measurements compare to those expected for divergence by genetic drift. Natural selective hypotheses designed to account for Neandertal and modern human cranial differences would also need to show multivariate consistency with the observed patterns of variation. While it may be possible to imagine natural selective scenarios that mimic genetic drift for a single measurement, such as fluctuating directional natural selection, the scenarios become much less plausible for multivariate patterns of variation (Weaver and Roseman 2008:78).

Both these papers cannot be correct. A full text search of Lieberman's paper does not find the words "drift" or "random," and "neutral" only appears as part of "neutral horizontal axis." Yet Weaver and Roseman cite the neutrality of cranial form as the main evidence against Eswaran's model of an adaptive dispersal of cranial form. According to them, all of Lieberman's "speculations" must be wrong.

I thought maybe I could get some insight into this dilemma by reading Günter Bräuer's paper, "The origin of modern anatomy: by speciation or intraspecific evolution." That title sounds fairly clear -- if we're talking about a speciation of modern humans to explain their anatomy, that sounds like the kind of rapid change that ought to indicate selection of some kind.

Bräuer shows some skepticism toward Lieberman's ideas about cranial evolution:

In my view, Lieberman, McBratney, and Krovitz's interpretation that anatomical modernization can be boiled down to just a few autapomorphies or genetic changes will be difficult to accommodate within the current fossil evidence (Bräuer 2008:27-28).

OK, but does this disagreement mean that Bräuer is likewise skeptical of adaptive hypotheses to explain modern cranial form? Again, a full text search fails to find the words, "drift," "neutral," or "random." But neither does it find the word "selection." Bräuer is concerned with describing the pattern of evolution of the modern human cranial form, but is entirely noncommittal on the question of why it evolved. That would seem to be problematic in itself: wouldn't we expect a different pattern of evolution if natural selection caused the changes, than if genetic drift caused them? Wouldn't the two causes make different predictions about the role of speciation in the process?

I'll have more to write about Bräuer's interesting paper, but on this issue, I think that is all I can extract from it. Osbjorn Pearson's paper, "Statistical and biological definitions of 'anatomically modern' humans," has more to say on the issue. Pearson cites the work that suggests modern human cranial form evolved under random genetic drift, saying:

Ideally, one would like to partition morphological distance into differences due to genetic drift, adaptation, and environmental interactions with ontogeny. Recently, several promising studies have shed light on these issues, including the amount of morphological diversity in recent humans that likely reflects genetic drift and the effects of the toughness of foods on the cranial morphology and occlusion of nonhuman primates, retrognathic mammals (for example, hyraxes), and humans from different parts of the world. Nevertheless, much remains to be done before these relationships become completely clear (Pearson 2008:40-41).

He later suggests (p. 44) that "rapid morphological change due to drift during population bottlenecks" may be involved in the evolution of modern cranial form. On the other hand, Pearson also suggests that "selection for new, advantageous traits or genes, or some combination of the two [selection and drift]" may have occurred. That would seem fairly noncommittal.

However, Pearson's description of the series of events -- a stepwise, sequential series of anatomical changes ultimately in a worldwide context up to and including the Holocene -- seems pretty unlikely to result from genetic drift alone. Indeed, Pearson writes,

In common with many other parts of the world, [African] crania that have dimensions or suites of morphological traits that make them statistically indistinguishable from the living populations appear only during the Holocene (Pearson 2008:45).

If the evolution of modern cranial form is a process that continued into the Holocene, it is quite impossible to have been caused by drift alone, since the effective population sizes of human populations were too large, and drift could hardly have caused a "nearly universal pattern of gracilization" (ibid.). So Pearson's paper certainly heightens the contrast between the adaptive and drift scenarios. If the events are as Pearson describes them, the "genetic drift alone" hypothesis must be false.

Philip Rightmire's paper is about earlier events, and Chris Stringer and Nick Barton's paper is a conference review. That leaves only Ian Tattersall and Jeff Schwartz's paper, "The morphological distinctiveness of Homo sapiens and its recognition in the fossil record: clarifying the problem," to clarify the problem.

Tattersall and Schwartz direct their attention to the kinds of features that are suitable for identifying a species from the fossil record -- uniquely derived features, or "autapomorphies." In their view, species must be accurately diagnosed from sets of specimens ("alpha taxonomy") before any kind of evolutionary hypotheses can be tested.

Because of this, they don't talk very much about the kinds of evolutionary forces that might cause the patterns they see. The paper includes only one reference to "random" and "adaptive," both in a single sentence:

However, there are some materials of this period [the late Middle Pleistocene] that fall outside, but not far outside, the strictest definition of Homo sapiens as based on the living species. Most of these (for example, Border Cave 5, Boskop, Fish Hoek, Klasies River Mouth except for AP 6222, and maybe Cave of Hearths) form a generally poorly dated South African group in which cranial structure largely conforms to the modern Homo sapiens morphology except that, most notably, the bipartite brow and/or the inverted-T-shaped chin are lacking. Do such fossils represent distinctive and now extinct populations of Homo sapiens that lacked two or more of the most striking autapomorphies of the living species merely as a result of random (or even adaptive) population variation? Or did they belong in life to one or more distinctive reproductive entities whose histories did not impinge, at least biologically, on that of today's Homo sapiens? (Tattersall and Schwartz 2008:52, emphasis added)

The bolded sentence is important. Tattersall and Schwartz view adaptive and random variations as equivalent: small changes between populations that may occur even without the kind of significant isolation that would invite a taxonomic interpretation. They contrast these in the next sentence with "distinctive reproductive entities whose histories did not impinge." And they are correct; modern human populations have morphological differences as a result of both selection and drift, and their histories certainly have impinged on each other.

But it makes a difference whether selection or drift was the cause of changes, because selection is more powerful than drift. Weak selection can cause a level of morphological differentiation that would require long isolation by random drift alone. If selection were involved in African regional differentiation, there may be no reason to posit "distinctive reproductive entities whose histories did not impinge" -- in fact, their histories almost certainly would have impinged.

In other words, the relation of the pattern of features to the taxonomic status of the populations depends on the evolutionary forces that generated the pattern.

As Weaver and Roseman note, their hypothesis that modern human cranial form evolved neutrally depends on the pattern of evolution of different features, not the amount of evolution of any single feature. But the amount of evolution must still be explained; under their hypothesis, it must have occurred in small populations over a substantial period of time. In their hypothesis, the cranial differentiation of African late Middle/early Late Pleistocene fossils would have emerged during relatively long periods of parital or complete isolation. Under that hypothesis, Tattersall and Schwartz would be correct to place these fossils into different taxa, only one of which was ancestral to living people -- or at least principally ancestral, allowing for some small amount of hybridization and introgression.

In contrast, Lieberman's adaptive hypotheses are consistent with the evolution of modern human cranial morphology within a broader, larger population. Patterns of selection may explain the variation among the fossils. Today's humans may have emerged from a population with substantial cranial polymorphism. That scenario would seem to be consistent with the patterns described by Pearson -- in which modern human cranial variation does not standardize until very late, perhaps even Holocene times. Only selection could cause this kind of evolution within the large populations of the last 10,000 years, or even within the large populations of the last 70,000 years.

I picked this problem first, because it was the first to stand out to me in the papers. It does seem a fairly glaring contradiction. I don't expect the authors to have noticed the contradiction in advance; I think that they approach the question of human origins from fundamentally different viewpoints.

As you can tell, two of the papers are not concerned with the causes of evolution at all -- their aim is to map the pattern of morphological variation onto putative speciation events. But it seems to me that if we approach the fossil record with the idea that speciation is the major cause of such patterns, then we have already assumed how the evolution happened. It may not have escaped your notice that this is the major reason for disagreement about modern human origins: One group of authors wants to assume the conclusion, foreclosing further discussion.

I don't have any complaints about the papers that were chosen for the issue -- in fact, I'm interested in reading the current opinions of all these authors. So far, I would say that each paper is a well-written expression of its authors' ideas, and I appreciate having all that in one place.

But it does seem a little strange that a special issue devoted to modern human origins in Africa doesn't have more, um, diversity of opinion. Several of the papers discuss multiregional evolution. They apparently believe that it is an important enough viewpoint to include their reasons for disbelieving it. One of the papers (Weaver and Roseman) includes a section about genetic introgression, kindly citing my work. Another (Bräuer) claims that it is reasonable to include all Middle Pleistocene humans in Africa and Europe as part of "one polytypic species, Homo sapiens" (Bräuer 2008:32).

So the work of those of us who write about evolutionary mechanisms seems to be making an impact. Still, it's kind of like "dark matter" -- you only know about the ideas because of their effects on what you can read! In this case, you can read a lot of peoples' opinions about these ideas -- you just can't read them from the people who thought of them.

What boring meetings these must be, with everybody agreeing with each other all the time, and nobody to point out all these contradictions!

References:

Bräuer G. 2008. The origin of modern anatomy: by speciation or intraspecific evolution? Evol Anthropol 17:22-37. doi:10.1002/evan.20157

Lieberman DE. 2008. Speculations about the selective basis for modern human cranial form. Evol Anthropol 17:55-68. doi:10.1002/evan.20154

Pearson OM. 2008. Statistical and biological definitions of "anatomically modern" humans: Suggestions for a unified approach to modern morphology. Evol Anthropol 17:38-48. doi:10.1002/evan.20155

Tattersall I, Schwartz JH. 2008. The morphological distinctiveness of Homo sapiens and its recognition in the fossil record: Clarifying the problem. Evol Anthropol 17:49-54. doi:10.1002/evan.20153

Weaver TD, Roseman CC. 2008. New developments in the genetic evidence for modern human origins. Evol Anthropol 17:69-80. doi:10.1002/evan.20161

The PNAS Early Edition this week includes a paper by bee genome researchers Amro Zayed and Charles Whitfield. After a short review of honeybee phylogeny, they demonstrate two things:

1. An ancient dispersal of honeybees from Africa into Europe was accompanied by a pulse of positive selection on coding genes, amounting to selection on approximately 10 percent of bee genes.

2. As Africanized bees have spread across South and into North America, adaptive genes from the existing populations of European bees have introgressed into the Africanized population, increasing under positive selection.

These are remarkable parallels to the worldwide evolution of humans. In bees, the geographic pattern is not the same, and the timescale is different, but the overall genetic impact is quite similar.

Here's the bee history:

In its native range, A. mellifera is classified into approximately two dozen subspecies, which are further organized into four major geographically and genetically distinct groups: African, Western and Central Asian (hereafter referred to as Asian), Eastern European, and Western and Northern European (hereafter referred to as West European) (9-11). European honey bees were introduced by humans to the New World by European settlers as early as the 1600s. In Brazil in 1956, an intentional introduction of African honey bees (A. mellifera scutellata), which hybridized with previously introduced European bees, led to the establishment and spread of the highly invasive and economically devastating Africanized honey bees in North America and South America (12). Subsequent studies have shown that Africanized bees are predominantly African in ancestry with minor but consistent contribution from European genotypes (11, 12). Using recently developed SNP panels, Whitfield et al . (11) demonstrated that the honey bee originated in Africa and subsequently expanded into Eurasia in two or more independent ancient expansions. One expansion gave rise to Western European honey bees, and at least one other independent expansion gave rise to Asian and Eastern European honey bees. Honey bee subspecies vary in a host of phenotypic traits, such as morphology, behavior, physiology, and gene expression (9-11, 13, 14) (Zayed and Whitfield 2008:3421).

I was not aware of the initial dispersals of bees into Europe and Asia. The genetic data show that the Western European strains are the ones with the most adaptive evolution since their dispersal from Africa. The separate ancient bee dispersals were documented by Whitfield et al. (2006), but they were not able to provide date estimates for the ancient dispersals, and none are attempted in this study.

This is the kind of test that ought to fail in most wild populations. Without a shift in the adaptive landscape, the fraction of new mutations with potential adaptive value is bound to be small -- because species are optimized to the environments that they have occupied for a long time. But European bees have a number of recent environmental changes, ranging from the simple effect of moving from a tropical to a temperate environment, the need to use new and different flora, and the effects of domestication. In a very numerous, rapidly dispersing species, these effects led to a rapid adaptive response in a large proportion of genes. These are the basic principles underlying the recent acceleration of positive selection in our lineage also.

The introgression of European genes into the dispersing Africanized bees in the Americas is interesting, because it seems counter-intuitive. The main differences between Africanized bees and European bees involve adaptations to climate. European bees put up lots of honey for the winter, and swarm less frequently, in addition to being more sedate. African bees don't bother with as much honey, which together with their more frequent swarming would seem to be a good fit for the tropical pattern of seasonality. These African traits explain why the African bees have spread at the expense of the European bees across the tropical New World. But Africanized bees have picked up a lot of genes from the European bees in the New World.

The authors propose some possible explanations:

The adaptive value of functional (coding) portions of Western European genomes could be related to positive selection on novel variation in West European bees, to positive selection on novel hybrid gene combinations, and/or to selection for heterozygous genotypes. Our study thus provides direct evidence that invasive populations can exploit hybridization in an adaptive fashion -- a finding of immense relevance to understanding the dynamics of biological invasions (Zayed and Whitfield 2008:3424).

In other words, behavioral correlates of climate may be a target of selection and introgression -- I would speculate because of the intrinsic rarity of adaptive mutations in these functions.

This is a relatively course-grained analysis of positive selection, since the study basically averages within SNP categories, determining F_ST between pairs of populations. For non-coding SNPs, the Africanized bees are very similar to African bees (F_ST = 0.05), while for coding SNPs they are twice as divergent (F_ST = 0.10). That's a lot of difference in allele frequencies over a short time; it must have been caused by strong positive selection across a broad sample of loci. They do not attempt the same kind of "10% of genes" estimate for the introgression, but their figures show that it is quite significant across their data.

I don't know but it may be a while before this initial study can be followed up with recombination based selection tests, because of this little known fact: bees have a recombination rate of 19 cM/Mb -- roughly 15 times higher than humans. Still, Whitfield et al. (2006) found an excess of linkage disequilibrium in the West European subspecies of bees. It now seems likely that some of this LD is explained by the widespread selection documented in the current study.

In other words, the genetic structure of global bee populations provides another strong example of the importance of rapid evolution in abundant species, coupled with ecological changes. Bees also now provide a strong example of adaptive introgression -- in this case, within a very tightly timed dispersal with known climatic conditions.

References:

Zayed A, Whitfield CW. 2008. A genome-wide signature of positive selection in ancient and recent invasive expansions of the honey bee Apis mellifera. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 105:3421-3426. doi:10.1073/pnas.0800107105

Whitfield CW and 9 others. 2006. Thrice out of Africa: Ancient and recent expansions of the honey bee, Apis mellifera. Science 314:642-645. doi:10.1126/science.1132772

A flush of papers this week (two today in Nature, one tomorrow in Science) describe new analyses of SNPs across the genome. Two of the papers sample SNPs in global samples numbering more than 500 individuals.

This Reuters story by Maggie Fox is typical of the press coverage:

Gene studies confirm 'out of Africa' theories

WASHINGTON - Two big genetic studies confirm theories that modern humans evolved in Africa and then migrated through Europe and Asia to reach the Pacific and Americas.

...

The studies, published in the journal Nature on Wednesday, paint a picture of a population of humans migrating off the African continent, and then shrinking at some point because of unknown adversity.

Later populations grew and spread from this smaller genetic pool of founder ancestors -- a phenomenon known as a bottleneck.

These studies have very, very exciting potential. Here in my lab, we will be immediately using the data from these papers to test hypotheses about recent human evolution.

But it is beyond me to understand why anyone thinks that the "serial founder effect" story is news!

For one thing, the idea is based on 12-year-old research demonstrating that human diversity declines for some genetic loci with distance from Africa. This observation was replicated for genome-wide STR loci in a well-publicized paper three years ago. This paper clearly demonstrated how a model involving a chain of bottlenecks could result in a cline of diversity -- one population leaving Africa, a small group from this population moving to Jordan, another small group moving from Jordan to Mesopotamia, another small group from Mesopotamia to the Zagros, etc.

In other words, there's nothing new here. It's no surprise that genome-wide SNPs and copy-number variants (CNVs) should replicate the pattern already shown for genome-wide STRs.

What's worse, all these papers from the Stanford school of genetic orthodoxy fail to even test the hypothesis! I pointed out this problem three years ago:

The data that the paper attempts to explain are (1) the correlation of genetic distance and geographic distance among human populations, and (2) the decrease in genetic diversity in populations farther from Africa. We may ask, what other hypotheses would explain the same data? And what kind of evidence could test these hypotheses, instead of just asserting that they "match" the pattern of evidence.

One scenario that matches the evidence is multiregional evolution with a recent African dispersal of some adaptive genes. This is the hypothesis presented by Eswaran (2002). The idea is that human populations interacted for a long time in Africa and Eurasia, and that during the Late Pleistocene, adaptive changes within Africa allowed those populations to spread alleles into existing populations in Eurasia. The strength of the "founder effect" in this scenario depends on the genetic structure and selective advantage of the new African adaptive complex. Ramachandran et al (2005) actually cite Eswaran (2002) as an example of a serial founder effect. So the idea that there was widespread genetic movement out of Africa does not necessarily imply an out-of-Africa population replacement. The data do not require a replacement, and some -- even many -- of the genetic variants outside of Africa may have nothing to do with recent genetic movement out of Africa.

A second hypothesis is presented by Templeton (2002), who proposed that several founder effects happened at different times in the Pleistocene, each carrying one or more genetic variants out of Africa. The pattern of genetic variation appears to indicate that some genes left Africa during the Lower or Middle Pleistocene, while others dispersed later, during the Late Pleistocene. For Templeton (2002), this pattern indicates multiple dispersals, none of which was sufficient to wipe out the genetic contribution of earlier dispersals. This scenario also would lead to a pattern of correlation of genetic and geographic distance (because most genes have been affected by isolation-by-distance for a long time), while the recurrent dispersals would explain the decline in genetic variation outside of Africa.

A third hypothesis is that population size was simply greater within Africa than within Eurasia. The smaller population size (along with isolation-by-distance) would explain the difference in genetic variation; the correlation of genetic and geographic distance would be explained by isolation-by-distance. We may consider a fourth hypothesis also: that natural selection has tended to create slightly more genetic uniformity within Eurasia and slightly more genetic diversification in Africa. Such a scenario might be justified on ecological grounds: African populations cover a wider range of ecologies and have historically had a greater exposure to zoonotic disease, for example.

Except for the serial founder effect with population replacement, none of the other hypotheses are mutually exclusive. In other words, some genes might have been influenced by natural selection, most might have been somewhat influenced by differences in population size, but the largest effect might have been recurrent population dispersals.

Reading over the whole post, I think it did a good job of laying out the situation with serial founder effects in 2005, and there is little reason to change it now. Still nobody has tested the model! Again, this is a case of science by consistency -- the results of simulations generate the same kind of correlations as the observed data, so the authors claim support for their hypothesis.

But the necessary test should be carried out by dating haplotypes, finding the ages of "founder mutations" and eliminating the possibility of introgression from ancestral Eurasian populations. One of the key points in my earlier post is that the model proposed by Eswaran (2002) would generate exactly the distribution expected for serial founder effects -- despite the fact that it describes a wave of genetic change within an already-established pan-Old-World population.

This study doesn't support an out-of-Africa migration; it merely assumes it. Now, I'm one who thinks that there was an important trend of strong gene flow out of Africa in the Late Pleistocene. But data showing a correlation between diversity and distance from Africa just cannot show the critically important facts about the timing and magnitude of such gene flow.

Somebody will eventually straighten all this out. What I wonder is why it never seems to be the reviewers!

References:

Jakobsson M and 23 others. 2008. Genotype, haplotype and copy-number variation in worldwide human populations. Nature 451:998-1003. doi:10.1038/nature06742

Eswaran V, Harpending H, Rogers AR. 2005. Genomics refutes an exclusively African origin of humans. J Hum Evol 49:1-154.

Ramachandran S, Deshpande O, Roseman CC, Rosenberg NA, Feldman MW, Cavalli-Sforza LL. 2005. Support from the relationship of genetic and geographic distance in human populations for a serial founder effect originating in Africa. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 102:15942-15947.

Templeton AR. 1998. Human races: a genetic and evolutionary perspective. Am Anthropol 100:632-650.

Templeton AR. 2002. Out of Africa again and again. Nature 416:45-51.

It's that time of year again -- the time when those boring ``Year in Review'' magazines are on newsstands, and when pundits make fools of themselves predicting what will happen in the next year.

Well, I'm not too proud to join the fools, as I've shown the last two years. In 2006, I got five predictions right out of ten. Not bad for my first outing, but you'll see that last year's predictions fared even better:

• 10. Sahelanthropus postcrania will be published. I'm frankly shocked that this didn't happen. I don't doubt the rumors, but I'm starting to wonder whether this story is more interesting than it looks....
• 9. Two words: Holocene evolution. OK, this was a little unfair, considering that my work was an important part of making this prediction come true. Still, Discover made ``recent human evolution'' one of its top 100 science stories of the year, even before our December paper came out -- mainly on the strength of the paper by Scott Williamson and colleagues from earlier this year. And "Human genetic variation" was Science's "Breakthrough of the Year" -- most of that variation representing recent evolution.
• 8. Despite (or because of) the success of the Neandertal genome project, there will be no genetics of any kind published on early modern skeletal material. Puzzling, isn't it? But then, considering the trouble with Neandertal contamination reported in August, maybe we're better off leaving the early Upper Paleolithic alone for a while.
• 7. The mitochondrial history of human dispersals will become more and more detailed, but no paper will test against other loci. D'oh! Reading this one a year later, it's pretty obvious that I should have included Y chromosome in this one, since those two get compared all the time! Proofread, Hawks!
• 6. Another (yes, another) paper about the chimpanzee-human divergence will peg it between 5 and 7 million years ago. Will they never tire of these? Hobolth et al. (2007, PLoS Genet 3:e7) pegged the divergence at 4.1 million years. That's too recent to fit my prediction. Instead, I have to turn to Ebersberger et al. (2007, Mol Biol Evol 24:2276), who placed the divergence at 5.7 million years ago. Both estimates are too recent for Sahelanthropus, which the geneticists have started to figure out....
• 5. Three papers with new Ethiopian fossils. The last few years, one annual Ethiopian find seemed to be predictable enough. So I figured, why not three? We got a not-nearly-noted-enough paper this summer by Gen Suwa and colleagues descringing the Konso Homo erectus remains. Then, Suwa brought us Chororapithecus -- hey, I didn't say "hominid!" That's two. But despite the long-ago announcement of the Woranso-Mille skeleton, its appearance in a meetings abstract and a mid-summer press release about further Mille fossils, all we got from the peer review system is a lousy faunal list. Well, the faunal list does include the hominids. Should it count as a "paper with new Ethiopian fossils?" I'll say yes -- hey, unlike Aramis, at least the Mille fossils are new!
• 4. Another early Upper Paleolithic specimen will emerge from a museum collection. The only bizarre thing about this one was the location: South Africa. Hoffmeyr may not be that convincing as a European early Upper Paleolithic skull, but it was sure sold that way. Weird.
• 3. A big year for Miocene apes, which will look increasingly important in the story of human brain evolution. No brains, but it sure was a big year for Miocene apes, with two significant East African discoveries claiming to push back the timeline of African ape divergence.
• 2. Maturation rate in early Homo becomes a dead issue, because of the variation in dental and skeletal maturation in living people. Wishful thinking. Still, did Tanya Smith (2007) breathe new life into perikymata? Let's just say that unresolved questions remain.
• 1. The year will end without a single new hominid species having been named. This one was like dodging a bullet, since new species riffle out of paleoanthropologists' minds all the time. From 2001 to 2006, there were six (six!). In 2007, none.
• BONUS: A dramatic development in the problem of pre-2.0-million-year-old Homo. Rats.

OK, that's seven out of ten. It's beyond belief that I did better in the top five than the bottom five -- I picked those because they were far out there. I mean, really -- a new Upper Paleolithic specimen from a museum collection? After Muierii, that's like calling lightning to strike twice. But there it is, and in January, no less.

I'm clearly going to have to pick stranger predictions this year. And I'll have to be careful about that "dramatic development" line -- I mean, it's appropriately Delphic, but what is it supposed to mean, really? I wonder whether "operatic development" might be better.

And do I dare call down my non-lightning strike for a third year? It's ruining my percentage! It's starting to reek of desperation -- I mean, it starts to look like the stopped watch effect even if it happens.

Oh, well. I mean, those are just the risks of predictions, right? Suppose in the preseason I had picked Kansas to win the Orange Bowl!

• 10. A dramatic development in the Sahelanthropus story.
• 9. Both major-party candidates for the 2008 U.S. Presidential election will accept evolution.
• 8. This year's featured piece of anatomy: the femur.
• 7. No new hobbits, at least, not from Flores.
• 6. An incisive example of introgression in East Asia.
• 5. A viral insertion in the human genome will tell us about a disease of the australopithecines.
• 4. Another language gene joins FoxP2. No word on whether Neandertals have the human version.
• 3. Homo habilis: an endangered species?
• 2. This year, something new from three A's: A. afarensis. A. africanus. Atapuerca.
• 1. Oh, and one more A. Ardipithecus.
• BONUS: A big, big year for Neandertals. I mean, besides the election.

There you have it. I'm not sure which of these is the riskiest, but I'm sure they're more out on a limb than last year!

The embargo has now ended on the second, and far more important paper that I mentioned the other day. It is a product of work I've been doing with Bob Moyzis of UC Irvine, his former graduate student Eric Wang, now at Affymetrix, my friend Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending at the University of Utah.

Some readers may know I've been working on this project -- I've given presentations at meetings and at a number of universities about it. But otherwise I've been silent about it. In particular I have been systematically avoiding the topic of recent selection here on the weblog. It has been a great inconvenience to me, but the unhappy fact is that journals want new results, and blogging about something is at least perceived to reduce its news value. And of course, working with other people across the country entails a lot of respect for keeping discussions and results confidential until we have all signed off on everything.

Anyway, I'm hugely excited about this project, our current results, and what we will be doing next. Which means I have some pent-up writing to do! Over the next few days, this will be acceleration central -- I'll be laying out what these genomic data mean for recent human evolution, what kinds of genes we have been finding under selection, and exactly how these kinds of analyses are done.

I'll also be tracking press articles and blog reactions to the paper. PNAS is, if anything, consistently unpredictable about when they actually make papers available. If you want a preprint, please let me know. I'd also appreciate your links.

Also, if you've come here for the first time, welcome! I may get a lot of traffic for a few days, so I apologize if things are slow.

Here's a start: the abstract.

Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution

John Hawks, Eric T. Wang, Gregory Cochran, Henry C. Harpending, and Robert K. Moyzis

Genomic surveys in humans identify a large amount of recent positive selection. Using the 3.9-million HapMap SNP dataset, we found that selection has accelerated greatly during the last 40,000 years. We tested the null hypothesis that the observed age distribution of recent positively selected linkage blocks is consistent with a constant rate of adaptive substitution during human evolution. We show that a constant rate high enough to explain the number of recently selected variants would predict (i) site heterozygosity at least 10-fold lower than is observed in humans, (ii) a strong relationship of heterozygosity and local recombination rate, which is not observed in humans, (iii) an implausibly high number of adaptive substitutions between humans and chimpanzees, and (iv) nearly 100 times the observed number of high-frequency linkage disequilibrium blocks. Larger populations generate more new selected mutations, and we show the consistency of the observed data with the historical pattern of human population growth. We consider human demographic growth to be linked with past changes in human cultures and ecologies. Both processes have contributed to the extraordinarily rapid recent genetic evolution of our species.

This is a bold assertion, and I will be putting out an FAQ later today that covers many of the questions I have been fielding from the press. There is a lot of technical detail in it, but we have accomplished essentially two things:

1. An empirical age distribution for alleles under recent selection, which number in the thousands.

2. A theoretical account of why these new alleles should have been increasing rapidly in numbers during the last 40,000 years.

It is a powerful paper because it shows why a rapid acceleration of our evolution is expected in theory, and it matches those expectations to real empirical data. It shows the absolute impossibility of a constant rate of selective change in humans, and that gives reality to our estimate of the amount of acceleration.

The last paragraph of the discussion:

It is sometimes claimed that the pace of human evolution should have slowed as cultural adaptation supplanted genetic adaptation. The high empirical number of recent adaptive variants would seem sufficient to refute this claim. It is important to note that the peak ages of new selected variants in our data do not reflect the highest intensity of selection, but merely our ability to detect selection. Due to the recent acceleration, many more new adaptive mutations should exist than have yet been ascertained, occurring at a faster and faster rate during historic times. Adaptive alleles with frequencies under 22% should then greatly outnumber those at higher frequencies. To the extent that new adaptive alleles continued to reflect demographic growth, the Neolithic and later periods would have experienced a rate of adaptive evolution more than 100 times higher than characterized most of human evolution. Cultural changes have reduced mortality rates, but variance in reproduction has continued to fuel genetic change. In our view, the rapid cultural evolution during the Late Pleistocene created vastly more opportunities for further genetic change, not fewer, as new avenues emerged for communication, social interactions, and creativity.

Over the next few days, I'll fill you in a bit about the course of this research -- how we got started, how it proceeded, and what parts of it remain exciting. Also, I'll try to give a flavor to what genomics means for anthropology -- what exactly is "anthropological genomics?" I think that there is an exciting frontier opening in the way we look at the past, and I hope to be able to show how some of it will work over the next few years.

Although I've had a number of papers come out this year, there are two in particular that I've been working on for quite a long time. Both papers began their gestation in the summer and fall of 2005. Each of the two papers explicates a major pattern for the action of natural selection in human evolution -- to my mind, at least, the most important two. Each was a long project, requiring the integration of mathematical, theoretical and informatic resources, and researchers scattered across the country.

Both papers were submitted earlier this year to different journals, and in several instances revisions and decisions about them were made within a week of each other.

Now, the two papers are being published online, both within a week of each other.

The first to appear is our review of genetic introgression and modern human origins, now online in Trends in Genetics.

Gregory Cochran and I published a number of theoretical considerations about introgression last year (Hawks and Cochran 2006, described in this post). That paper included a very comprehensive review of adaptive introgression among natural populations, focused on mammals, citing more than 170 references. But we had relatively little to say about the genetic evidence for introgression in human evolution, because the key paper from Bruce Lahn's lab (Evans et al. 2006) had not yet been published.

We have included some of that evidence in our current review. It is a shorter, more compact paper than last year's. That means that it leaves out a number of details, but it allows us to bring the molecular evidence and population genetic theory together.

In that form, it is possible to discuss some of the interesting predictions we might make about Neandertal-human population dynamics. For instance, why are two of the candidate introgressive alleles related to the brain? Our final section, "What did archaics have to offer?" takes on this question:

Adaptive alleles from archaic humans present a paradox. We recognize archaic humans by their morphology, and their morphology has mostly disappeared. Therefore, if moderns still retain adaptive alleles from archaic humans, those alleles almost certainly were not correlated with traits that we recognize as archaic. Instead, they must be related to phenotypes that we cannot recognize easily in archaic human fossils.

This is a crucial fact. We already know that Neandertal anatomies disappeared. But what makes a "Neandertal" anatomical feature? Clearly, we recognize it precisely because it is rare today.

If we are going to look for introgressive alleles, we have to look outside of this acquisition bias. The brain is a promising area on this score -- we know little about its variation in fossil humans.

In the final section, we allowed ourselves some speculation about the dynamics of modern human origins and dispersal:

Cosmopolitan populations like modern humans are generally a threat to endemics, but this threat intensifies during range expansions and population growth. In endemic species, alleles that promote outbreeding can be selected merely because the cosmopolitan species is expanding, aiding the collapse of former reproductive boundaries. Certainly, the distinctive morphological adaptations of archaic humans lost some of their selective advantage with the increasing technical sophistication of the early Upper Paleolithic (35 000 - 15 000 years ago). This must especially have been true of populations like the Neanderthals, whose skeletal and muscular specializations required a high energy budget. In an adaptive context, Neanderthals and other archaic humans were like endangered endemics, suffering from relatively high mortality and high energetic costs. Possibly, the only remaining adaptive strategy for them was mixture with the more cosmopolitan modern humans.

This is of course speculative, but I think it is valuable because it attempts to place ancient human populations in the context of modern conservation biology.

We often read that various human groups were "endangered" at one time or another, including the Neanderthals. But I have not seen anyone take the next logical step, which is to discuss the ways that endangered species actually interact with their congeneric competitors. When the interaction between populations includes interbreeding, interesting dynamics may emerge.

Does this mean that humans and Neandertals were distinct species who intermixed by hybridization?

I wrote about that question last year, concluding:

There will never be any tidy solution to the species problem, because all species have unique evolutionary histories and constraints. Given these difficulties, the species status of archaic Homo populations is basically an intractable problem. That is, I am happy to suggest that archaic Homo populations correspond to classical subspecies, and as far as I know, no evidence strongly contradicts that position. But I can recognize that some people will never agree with this assignment. And from the perspective of their evolution, it just doesn't matter. Evolutionarily important gene flow occurs between mammal species, subspecies, and populations.

The last sentence is the most important point. Those who want to put Neandertals into a distinct species (Homo neanderthalensis) generally believe that there was no evolutionarily significant gene flow between them and modern humans. But the opportunity for evolutionarily significant gene flow is always there, irrespective of whether the populations are species, subspecies, or even genera. Remember Bos-Bison introgression.

You can't simply define the problem of Neandertal-modern interactions away by giving them different names. And in reference to the "paradox" pointed out above, there is no defining the problem away by pointing to morphological differences. If we recognize that Neandertals are hominids, that is quite enough to suggest that gene flow was possible between them and their contemporaries.

The only thing left is to quantify the amount. The genetic observations thus far suggest that a predominant fraction of the gene pool of living humans descends from a relatively homogeneous ancient population. Since Late Pleistocene humans were geographically differentiated, this means that one ancient population disproportionately expanded at the expense of others. Genetic comparisons allow us to infer that the expanding population was initially African. This expanding population received introgressive alleles, both from other African populations and from Eurasian ones.

But that was not the end of the story. Introgressive alleles succeeded or failed on the basis of selection on them. The expanding population continued to grow in numbers. And the stage may have been set for something even more interesting...

More reading

"Why introgression?" discusses why introgression is a useful concept, compared to the simpler "gene flow."

"Introgression and microcephalin FAQ" addressed the MCPH1 genealogy.

"Neandertal introgression, anatomically" reviewed the paper by Soficaru et al. (2006) on the Pestera Muierii skull.

"The inevitability of introgression" announced and gave some details from our 2006 paper.

References:

Evans PD, Mekel-Bobrov N, Vallender EJ, Hudson RR, Lahn BT. 2006. Evidence that the adaptive allele of the brain size gene microcephalin introgressed into Homo sapiens from an archaic Homo lineage. Proc Nat Acad Sci 103:18178-18183. doi:10.1073/pnas.0606966103

Hawks J, Cochran G. 2006. Dynamics of adaptive introgression from archaic to modern humans. PaleoAnthropology 2006:101-115. Open access

Hawks J, Cochran G, Harpending HC, Lahn BT. 2007. A genetic legacy from archaic Homo. Trends Genet (early online) doi:10.1016/j.tig.2007.10.003

This week, Johannes Krause and colleagues from the Max Planck Evolutionary Anthropology institute announced that they had tickled FoxP2 out of two Neandertal specimens from El Sidrón, Spain. The bones were excavated in sterile (clean-cave?) conditions, immediately frozen and then shipped to Leipzig, where extracts were taken in clean-room conditions.

Here's an FAQ about what they found.

Why is this paper really important?

Isn't it obvious? It's important because it demonstrates that more than one Neandertal is suitable for nuclear genome recovery. We will know about genetic variation in Neandertals, sooner rather than later. These two bones come from different individuals, because the Leipzig group found two different mtDNA sequences in them. Together with the Vindija Vi 33.16 specimen in the original Neandertal genome papers, this makes three nuclear genome Neandertals. There will be more.

It also shows the possibility of probing ancient skeletons for specific genes. Here, they went in looking for Y-DNA, X-DNA and particular sites on FoxP2, and they found them. That is definitely the way to go if you want to test a biologically significant hypothesis fast -- otherwise, you just have to wait until the sequence comes up in your genome project.

However, I question the value of probing for individual genetic variants in this way. Every probe takes a bit of sample, which might be more efficiently used in whole-genome sequencing. We have 25,000 genes, and every one is potentially interesting. Every small sample used to assay only one of those genes may destroy many sequences from the others. It would be one thing if samples were trivial and easily replaced, but they obviously aren't.

Still, we will certainly see additional probes for genes that are of particular interest. I wouldn't be surprised to see MC1R results soon, to probe whether there were pigmentation variants in Neandertals. The same has already been done for woolly mammoths.

So, Neandertals had the human-specific FoxP2 form. Did they talk?

I think the genetic observation leans toward that direction, but doesn't really change our understanding. Consider:

Neandertals have a hyoid bone with humanlike anatomy, as did the Atapuerca people at more than 300,000 years ago, even though A. afarensis did not. So something related to vocalization evolved in humans by the Middle Pleistocene. Although Neandertal vocal tracts may not have been identical to recent humans, there is nothing about them that would preclude speech. The only paleoneurological observation about language puts a developed Broca's area on the KNM-ER 1470 endocast, Homo habilis.

Like other Middle Paleolithic/MSA people, their technology required more information to learn than earlier, Lower Paleolithic industries, leading to regional differentiation and more task-specific facies. Late Neandertals made use of some technology otherwise used only by Upper Paleolithic modern humans. Their hunting methods must have required cooperation and may have been impossible without a more sophisticated communication strategy than used by other primates.

All of these things argue for some kind of Neandertal language irrespective of FoxP2.

Then again, most of the arguments against humanlike language facility in Neandertals also have nothing to do with FoxP2, either. The slow technological progress, limited collection strategies, the rarity of any artistic or symbolic expression, their high mortality rate, and -- of course -- the fact that they no longer exist have all been considered as evidence that Neandertals lacked some essential aspect of "behavioral modernity." If language is a prerequisite for the modern human pattern of behavior, then Neandertals may not have talked, at least not in the way we do.

I think the FoxP2 story has really confused people much more than necessary. But in this case, the confusion is the same that results from every other gene study: when the press says we've found a gene "for" something, what it ought to say is that we've found an allele that affects something.

No macromutation happened. Language did not spring full-formed into the mind of some ancient African. All members of Homo used communication systems including some (possibly minimal) elements of language, and the evolution of the human brain, along with technological changes throughout the Paleolithic, reflect the evolution of communication. Human language evolved -- like all things -- over a long time, and like all complex phenotypes it required a series of mutational changes. Many of these mutations became fixed during recent human evolution, some may still be changing in frequency today. Language evolution is probably a continuing process.

That means that it must have involved many more genes than FoxP2 -- which after all experienced only two amino acid substitutions in all of human evolution. I would imagine the number of genes involved in language evolution is more than 500, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were much more. In that context, it seems quite silly to say FoxP2 is the "critical" evolutionary change for anything.

Then you agree with Language Log. They told me that FoxP2 isn't a "language gene."

The case is strong that the two FoxP2 coding substitutions in humans were selected because of their role in language. The gene sequence is strongly conserved in most mammals, and shows similar changes in some other species with unusual vocal adaptations, such as echolocating bats (Li et al. 2007). Its expression pattern delineates areas related to vocalizations in both humans and birds, and the pattern itself differentiates between song-learning versus nonlearning bird species (Haesler et al. 2004, Teramitsu et al. 2004, Webb and Zhang 2005). And of course, mutations to FoxP2 can result in specific language impairment (SLI) in humans.

Still, that case is only circumstantial. We know that FoxP2 was under selection, that it became fixed in humans, probably during the Late Pleistocene, and that breaking the gene changes brain development and damages language skills. But we don't know what a human would be like with the chimpanzee form of the protein. We don't know whether both of the human-specific amino acid substitutions have a different effect than one. Most important, we don't know what other genetic changes may have been necessary backgrounds for selection on FoxP2.

This means Neandertals were really modern humans, right?

This study should put an end to the "sudden mutation" model of modern human origins.

There was not a single mutation that made the critical difference in the ancestry of today's people. There was no cognitive Rubicon leading to modern human evolution. I would analogize the process as a slow-motion avalanche: at first a few small sands began to tumble, and then selection on a large number of genes became inevitable. FoxP2 is one of those genes, and as yet we don't know whether it was near the beginning or near the end of the process.

But it is clear that the process began before the Neandertals were gone. Some aspects of behavioral complexity did begin to evolve rapidly sometime after 70,000 years ago. This rapid evolution was multiregional in context -- it was not limited to a single human population. In particular, it was not limited to Africans: the last Neandertals clearly manifested technological and behavioral strategies otherwise defined as "behaviorally modern" (d'Errico 2003). There's a reason why the Neandertal-produced Châtelperronian industry of France and Spain was historically considered the first Upper Paleolithic industry.

But we have undergone light-years of change since the last Neandertals lived. This is not a question of "modern human origins" anymore. We can now show that living people are much more different from early modern humans than any differences between Neandertals and other contemporary peoples. I think that "modern humans" is on its way to obsolescence. What matters is the pattern of change across all populations. Possibly that pattern was initiated by changes in one region but the subsequent changes were so vast that the beginning point hardly matters.

We all know that the Neandertal genome is riddled with contamination from modern humans. Isn't the null hypothesis that we have a modern human sequence here because it is a modern human?

Well, as you know, I'm not all that convinced that contamination explains the interpretive discrepancies between last year's genome papers. But still, this study has done some things to address the problem of contamination.

It is notable that Green et al. (2006) found 25% modern human mtDNA in one of the El Sidrón bones: this shows that even "sterile" excavation, immediate freezing and extraction under clean-room conditions cannot exclude contamination. There is at the moment nothing more that can be done. We will always have the problem of a contamination fraction in ancient Neandertal skeletons. So we have to judge each study by the extent to which we can exclude contaminants with statistical analysis.

For this study, Krause et al. (2007) developed a test of nuclear DNA contamination: they identified seven gene variants that differ between the recovered Vindija Vi 33.16 nuclear genome and all known living humans. In other words, these are human-derived mutations that are absent from the only known Neandertal nuclear genome. Then, they probed the El Sidrón bones for these sites. They found only the ancestral form in their extracts of both bones -- presumably because no human contaminants were present in their samples.

That seems like a pretty good indication that the other sites in their sample represent the true gene variants of the ancient Neandertals. I wouldn't go so far as to say that contamination is ruled out, but it seems like these are good results.

Did FoxP2 introgress into Neandertals?

It sure looks that way to me. Let's consider the evidence:

FoxP2 recently fixed in humans. According to Enard et al. (2002:871):

Under a model of a randomly mating population of constant size, the most likely date since the fixation of the beneficial allele is 0, with approximate 95% confidence intervals of 0 and 120,000 years.

Now, Enard et al. (2002) noted that human populations have grown over time, and that they are not randomly mating, so that this date estimate might be too recent. Allowing for population growth since "10,000--100,000 years ago," they asserted that fixation of FoxP2 must have happened "during the last 200,000 years of human history." But this is not quite accurate. Unlike genetic drift, positive selection can and often does fix genes rapidly in a growing population. It simply doesn't matter that the human population has been rapidly growing: FoxP2 may still have just become fixed yesterday.

Last year, Green and colleagues (2006) considered that the Neandertal-modern population divergence time might have been quite recent, depending on the ancestral population size. According to the estimates of Wall and Kim (2007), the Green et al. data are consistent with a Neandertal-modern population divergence time as recent as 30,000 years ago. Of course, that date would predict substantial admixture between contemporary Neandertal and non-European populations -- they would have been exchanging genes up to the very lifetimes of the last Neandertals. According to those data there would be nothing surprising about Neandertals and living people sharing the human-derived FoxP2 allele. But as mentioned above, Wall and Kim (2007) used the recent divergence estimate as evidence that the Neandertal genome data from Green et al. must be contaminated.

So, if we cannot trust the data, then we have to fall back on some other estimate of the divergence date. Noonan and colleagues (2006) estimated a divergence date between Neandertals and modern populations between 170,000 and 570,000 years ago. If we accept that, then the confidence intervals of the Neandertal-human divergence and the FoxP2 selective sweep might barely overlap. Might. But I will note that a minimal overlap between the 95% confidence intervals of two point estimates does not mean that they are not significantly different. Only if the expected value of one estimate falls within the 95% confidence interval of the other do they fail to be significantly different. It is pretty unlikely that the most recent FoxP2 sweep is older than 170,000 years ago and the Neandertal-modern population split is as recent as 170,000 years.

That is, unless the "split" time reflects widespread genetic introgression.

The current paper (Krause et al. 2007) goes to some contortions to try to establish that the FoxP2 sweep could really have been older than 300,000 years ago (where they place the lower confidence limit on the N-M split):

The third scenario is that the selective sweep started before the divergence of the ancestral populations of Neandertals and modern humans around 300,000-400,000 years ago

Let me just say that I was surprised to read this explanation in a paper from this group. One of the main arguments they have been posing as a scientific value of the Neandertal genome sequencing is that conventional methods don't detect selection at 300,000-400,000 years ago. But here, they consider such an ancient mutation to be the most likely hypothesis. This seems like quite a shift just to avoid the unpleasant idea of Neandertal introgression. Ooooh -- can't have those Neandercooties!

In reality, there is no reason to think the fixation of FoxP2 happened as early as 300,000 years ago, and indeed the very high frequencies of the linked derived alleles (over 97% for six of the linked alleles) suggest strongly that the sweep probably happened within the last 100,000 years -- otherwise, subsquent genetic drift should have caused these linked derived alleles to show more dispersion in their current frequencies. The same features that make the inference of selection so strong at FoxP2 -- it is far (>286 kilobases) from the nearest gene and it includes many high-frequency derived alleles in addition to reduced polymorphism -- make it very unlikely that the selective sweep was ancient.

So, considering that the El Sidrón samples both share the human-derived amino acid substitutions on the same haplotype as modern humans, complete with all the high-frequency derived SNPs, it seems almost certain that the gene introgressed into Neandertals from modern humans.

Or, there's one other option. One of the El Sidrón bones includes a relatively rare (in humans) ancestral SNP allele at one of those linked sites where the derived allele is at very high frequency in humans. One explanation: the selected mutation arose in Neandertals and introgressed into other humans. That would explain why this Neandertal didn't have a SNP variant on its FoxP2 haplotype that later became very common in humans: Neandertals had the new FoxP2 first.

What about that Y chromosome thing?

The El Sidrón bones both tested positive for the Y chromosome site assayed in the study. That means they were both male (duh!). But more important, the Y chromosomes of both individuals lacked the human-specific derived mutation that the researchers tested for. Since all human males yet surveyed have this human-derived mutation, this means that a Y chromosome variant has fixed in modern humans that Neandertals did not have. Since the entire nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome is completely linked, we can infer that the entire modern human Y chromosome has undergone at least one fixation not shared with the ancestors of these Neandertals.

Here's the text (from page 2):

Both Neandertals yielded products for Y chromosomal primer pairs, indicating that they were males. Strikingly, all 15 Y chromosomal products for the five assayed positions show the ancestral allele. This includes two polymorphisms that define the deepest split among current human Y chromosomes (Y2 and Y4, Figure S1) as well as two polymorphisms that cover less common African Y chromosomes (Y3 and Y5, Figure S1). These Y chromosome results must derive, then, either from Y chromosomes that fall outside the variation of modern humans or from the very rare African lineages not covered by the assay (Figure S1). For our purposes, this result shows that neither the maternally inherited mtDNA nor the paternally inherited Y chromosome shows evidence of gene flow from modern humans into Neandertals or of subsequent contamination of their mortal remains.

That's not such a big surprise. Already we knew that the fixation of the human Y chromosome was very recent -- probably within the last 70,000--100,000 years, and possibly even more recently. Every man on earth shares recent Y chromosome mutations that were completely absent in Middle Pleistocene humans. That is one radical recent evolutionary change.

The paper elsewhere suggests that this absence of the human-derived Y chromosome in Neandertals as evidence that they did not contribute other genes to us. I could not disagree more.

The very recent fixation of the Y chromosome in an expanding human population is extremely unlikely to have resulted from genetic drift. Drift does not eliminate rare variants as quickly in an expanding population. Instead, one or more Y chromosome mutations must have been positively selected, resulting in the fixation of the entire NRCY in recent humans.

In that context, the Neandertal result is quite expected: they had an earlier Y chromosome lacking one or more mutations later selected in the other ancestors of living people.

References:

Briggs AW, Stenzel U, Johnson PLF, Green RE, Kelso J, Prüfer K, Meyer M, Krause J, Ronan MT, Lachmann M, Pääbo S. 2007. Patterns of damage in genomic DNA sequences from a Neandertal. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA doi:10.1073/pnas.0704665104

d'Errico F. 2003. The invisible frontier. A multiple species model for the origin of behavioral modernity. Evol Anthropol 12:188-202. doi:10.1002/evan.10113

Green RE, Krause J, Ptak SE, Briggs AW, Ronan MT, Simons JF, Du L, Egholm M, Rothberg JM, Paunovic M, Pääbo S. 2006. Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA. Nature 444:330-336. doi:10.1038/nature05336

Haesler S, Wada K, Nshdejan A, Morrisey EE, Lints T, Jarvis ED, Scharff C. 2004. FoxP2 expression in avian vocal learners and non-learners. J Neurosci 24:3164-3175. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4369-03.2004

Krause J, Lalueza-Fox C, Orlando L, Enard W, Green RE, Burbano HA, Hublin J-J, Bertranpetit J, Hänni C, Fortea J, de la Rasilla M, Rosas A, Pääbo S. 2007. The derived FoxP2 variant of modern humans was shared with Neandertals. Curr Biol 17:1-5. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.10.008

Li G, Wang J, Rossiter SJ, Jones G, Zhang S. 2007. Accelerated FoxP2 Evolution in Echolocating Bats. PLoS ONE 2(9): e900. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000900

Noonan JP, Coop G, Kudaravalli S, Smith D, Krause J, Alessi J, Chen F, Platt D, Pääbo S, Pritchard JK, Rubin EM. 2006. Sequencing and analysis of Neanderthal genomic DNA. Science 314:1113-1118. doi:10.1126/science.1131412

Wall JD, Kim SK. 2007. Inconsistencies in Neanderthal genomic
DNA sequences. PLoS Genet 3:e175. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0030175.eor

Like mathematician Terence Tao hasn't heard that one before, hyuk. But he gives a nice account of the Grants' work on introgressive hybridization of ground finches:

This was all very reasonable and predictable, but it led to an interesting puzzle - given the modest genetic pool of the Geospiza scandens population, how was it that both the small-beak genes and large-beak genes survived for millions of years, given that selective pressures tended to strongly favour one over the other every decade or so?

The answer, hypothesised and then confirmed by Grant and her collaborators, was introgressive hybridisation - the occasional sharing of genes between Geospiza scandens and Geospiza fortis due to interbreeding.

We didn't include the finches in our paper on introgression,, but it's a well-documented example. For the finches, the clear importance of reinforcement selection on the species barrier between the forms means that their species difference is greater than it would be in the absence of such selection -- and in my thinking probably greater than species barriers in early hominids.

(via Gene Expression)

Israel Hershkovitz, Liora Kornreich, and Zvi Laron think they know the problem with Liang Bua 1. Almost 40 years ago, Laron began studying patients with a congenital deficiency of IGF-I (insulin-like growth factor, I). This deficiency occurs because of a defect to the growth hormone receptor, which then does not respond to growth hormone (GH). Hence, patients have a high circulating level of GH, but a low level of IGF-I. After Laron's description, this type of dwarfism was called Laron syndrome, or "Laron-type dwarfism". Since 1970, the disorder has been identified in families throughout the world, caused by a large variety of mutatations to the GHR gene. Much of this is reviewed in OMIM.

In the last few decades, a large number of clinical cases of Laron syndrome have been compiled. Hershkovitz, Kornreich, and Laron (2007) review the characteristics of the LS sample. Patients were dwarfed -- significantly short in stature for their age -- by more than 4 standard deviations (SD) below the average for their population. Moreover, they had small endocranial volumes, as much as 5 SD below the average for their population.

Here, I have reproduced Table 1 of the paper, including the list of similarities between Laron syndrome patients and the LB 1 skeleton:

There are two notable features of this list, besides its sheer length. First, it includes characters from around the skeleton. This is the first substantial examination we have seen of the LB 1 features that compare the full body to the effects of any kind of human dwarfism. Evidence from the postcrania are especially important, because they form a constellation that may be the result of a common developmental cause. Second, the list includes a broad range of features that are not "outside the range" of modern human variability -- the kinds of rare features that a clinician would recognize as symptomatic in combination with other features, but that by themselves may be found within otherwise normal humans.

If you've been following closely, you may remember that Richards (2006) also proposed that the features of LB 1 might be explained by a mutation to the IGF-I pathway, possibly in combination with other changes affecting brain size. Richards pointed out that pituitary dwarfism, including Laron syndrome, may alter the proportions of the limbs in a way similar to LB 1, and I view that as an important conclusion of the current paper (Herskovitz et al. 2007) as well. In fact, Hershkovitz and colleagues argue that many of the purportedly "unusual" features of the skeleton are straightforward consequences of its small size. This includes not only the proportions of the limb bones, but other details such as their slight muscle markings.

Interestingly, the low humeral torsion of LB 1 also figures into the LS diagnosis, and they spend nearly a page reviewing this feature. The torsion increases with age up to around 16, and developmental abnormalities including LS may cause it to fall below the general adult range. But this has become a very equivocal feature. Larson and colleagues (2007) reported that the humeral torsion exhibited by LB 1 was within the range of contemporary Australians. There's a huge range of torsion included within normal human populations, now -- extending as low as macaque values. The more comparisons are included, the more the LB 1 specimen seems to fall in the human range. This is not too surprising; if every unusual skeleton could be diagnosed by comparison with a small number of specimens, there would be no need for pathologists!

Brain size

Richards (2006) considered Laron syndrome briefly, but concluded that Laron syndrome patients have a cranium that is "near-normal in size." In the present paper, Hershkovitz et al. claim that the brain size is reduced by "up to 5 SD" in Laron syndrome. What gives?

Here is the relevant text from Hershkovitz et al.:

There is no doubt that the most striking characteristic of LB1 is not small stature but rather the minute cranial capacity. Despite the fact that the cranial volume in patients with LS is usually not decreased to the same degree as observed in LB1, three points should be mentioned: a) skulls of LS patients manifest most of the unique LB1 cranial features, b) a small head is a major characteristic of LS patients (up to 5 SD below the norm) and in IGF-I gene deletion (Woods et al., 1996). Jacob et al. (2006) reported that the LB1 cranial volume falls 5.5 SD below the combined sex Rampasasa mean, similar to what has been reported for LS patients, and c) there is a high degree of association between microcephaly and growth failure in general (O’Connell et al., 1965; Pryor and Thelander, 1968), GH deficiency (Dacuo-Voutetakis et al., 1974), and congenital IGF-I deficiency (Laron et al., 1968; Woods et al., 1996) in particular.

Additionally, many of the unique anatomical landmarks left by the brain of LB1 on the endocranial bony surface (Falk et al., 2005), are seen also in LS patients, and derived from the reorganization of the brain to fit into a small cranial space... (Hershkovitz et al. 2007:7).

Additionally, they point out that the genetic background of their sample of LS patients is different from that of recent and archaeological Southeast Asian islanders, which may also produce differences in the manifestation of growth deficiencies.

Is this fully convincing? The radiographs in the paper do not show skulls as reduced in cranial volume as LB 1. As far as I know (they do not present a range) there are none. Perhaps Richards (2006) is correct that a second explanation is necessary besides GH/IGR-I to explain the small brain, or perhaps the manifestation of such disorders in this population really is different. Plausibly, an archaeological specimen from anywhere is simply not comparable to the development of modern agricultural populations. I think the brain size remains a big hole in the hypothesis.

The hypothesis is testable!

The best thing about the LS hypothesis is that it is testable. There are other features of the skeleton that reflect LS that have not yet been reported for the LB 1 skeleton, but that ought to be observable.

Hershkovitz et al. (2007) point to the pneumatization of the mastoid region as possibly the most important test. LS patients have minimal or no pneumatization of this part of the cranial base; meaning that instead of spongy bone and open sinuses, they have dense compact bone:

Unfortunately, no radiographs of LB1's skull are as yet available and therefore appreciation of the extent of pneumatization in the LB1 skull is impossible. Non-pneumatized (acellular) mastoid process (Fig. 4), lack of (or minimal) frontal sinus (Fig. 2), and small paranasal sinuses are characteristic of LS (Kornreich et al., 2002) (Hershkovitz et al. 2007:3).

CT scans of LB 1 do exist, and they should be easy to check. Very easy. As in, somebody already knows the answer. That somebody just isn't me.

But is it a species?

What would it tell you if the hypothesis were true -- if LB 1 actually does have a mutation inducing a GH/IGR-I defect and this explains its stature, morphology, and brain size? For instance, does it represent a real ancient hominid species or just a pathological member of our own?

Hershkovitz, Kornreich, and Laron agree with Jacob et al. (2006), that many of the "unusual" characteristics of the skeleton actually are normal or reasonably common within the regional population of modern humans. For that reason, they find that the skeleton possesses no features that preclude it from membership in our species. So the short answer is, they think H. floresiensis is sunk.

But their longer answer is quite interesting as a defense of taxonomic conservatism, and is worth reading closely:

It is not the numerous conundrums that have been located by us and other researchers (Jacob et al., 2006; Martin et al., 2006a,b) in the Homo floresiensis publications which refute its status as a new species, but rather the wrong arguments brought to support it.

The combination of "modern" and "primitive" morphological characteristics is one of the major arguments raised by Brown et al. (2004) to differentiate LB1 from Homo sapiens. Nobody would argue, however, that LS patients who also manifest a similar combination (e.g., an extremely oval-shaped pelvic inlet, or a "bell-shaped" form of the thoracic cage), are direct descendents of Homo erectus (an idea advocated strongly for LB1 in the first paper) nor of the australopithecines (a notion which appears in the second publication). Based on morphological comparison between LS patients and normal short children, it is clearly evident that many of the "unique" primitive morphological traits seen in LB1 are due to her small stature (Takano et al., 1986). This also explains why LB1 shares most of her features, including the most "unique" ones (e.g., the deep fissure separating the mastoid process from the petrous crest of the tympanic bone; the absence of a true chin etc.) with local pygmoid populations (Jacob et al., 2006). Ignoring the possibility that LB1 is derived from a small stature population (Rampasasa pygmies are good candidates, as suggested by Jacob et al. in 2006) with its own distinct morphological features may lead to erroneous conclusions. For example, recently Larson et al. (2006) reported on a clavicle (short relative to humeral length) and scapula (normal) of LB1 and suggested that "A short clavicle may indicate a more protracted scapular position, raising the possibility of a previously unsuspected transitional stage in the course of hominin pectoral girdle evolution" (p A21). However, the length of the clavicle is mainly dictated by the shape and diameter of the upper thoracic cage. This is why both LS patients and KNM-WT 15000 H. erectus (both manifesting a very similar fan-shaped thorax) have a relatively short clavicle.

In contrast to Morwood's statement (2005) that LB1 manifests a combination of primitive and derived features that dictate exclusion from the species sapiens, we have herein offered evidence to suggest that LB1 is but a local individual in a highly inbred, probably pygmy-like population (of Homo sapiens) in whom a mutation of the GH receptor had occurred. (Hershkovitz et al. 2007:9).

In short, the persuasiveness of any combination of features as evidence depends on their correlation with each other. If they are all strongly correlated -- for instance, if they are effects of a common cause -- then the combination of features is best interpreted as evidence for that cause, rather than as multiple instances of evidence for some other hypothesis. In this case, Hershkovitz et al. argue that the common cause explaining the data does not require a species interpretation. Instead, they argue (following Jacob et al. 2006) that LB 1 and other specimens share many features with recent local people. So, the hypothesis that the LB hominids are Homo sapiens is well supported.

Now, what could contradict that hypothesis? In ot