Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Neanderthals Were Inbreeding. Did it Help Cause Their Extinction?

  1. #1
    Gold Member Class
    Posts
    1,293
    Sex
    Location
    Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, Canada
    Ethnicity
    Irish Canadian
    Nationality
    Canada
    Y-DNA
    L513->Z23516>BY11142
    mtDNA
    H1bd

    Canada Ireland Scotland England Ireland County Tipperary Canada Old Newfoundland

    Neanderthals Were Inbreeding. Did it Help Cause Their Extinction?

    I thought this was a well done article, but I easily admit the science is above me, so what do others think of this?


    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cr...M#.XIQaGihKi3-

    "Scientists keep prying into the sex lives of Neanderthals. In the past decade, they’ve revealed that Neanderthals got busy with both Homo sapiens and Denisovans, another lineage of now-extinct humans.

    But there’s more: Mounting evidence suggests Neanderthals also had a habit of inbreeding, or conceiving with close relatives. Several studies have now reported this based on genetic patterns and bone abnormalities thought to result from intra-family flings.

    First, let’s review the facts behind these claims of consanguinity, or mating between relatives. Then let’s consider the consequences: How did inbreeding impact Neanderthal health and survival?

    A Double Cousins Couple
    Neanderthals are a branch of the human family tree that inhabited Europe and Central Asia between 40,000 and 230,000 years ago. Since the first Neanderthal bones were discovered over 150 years ago, researchers have learned much about their lifestyles, technologies and evolutionary history.

    The first strong case of Neanderthal inbreeding came in 2014, when scientists published a genome extracted from a toe bone found in the Altai Mountains of Siberia. Alive roughly 120,000 years ago, this Neanderthal woman had closely related parents: half-siblings, double first cousins, an uncle-niece couple or some other combo with equal relatedness.

    This conclusion was based on a DNA statistic called runs of homozygosity (ROH). To understand ROH, we need to revisit high school biology: Recall that everyone has two copies of the genome, bundled in 46 chromosomes, 23 from mom and 23 from dad. During egg and sperm formation, the corresponding chromosomes line up next to each other and swap some stretches of DNA in a process called recombination. Consequently, the DNA you pass onto your children is a mosaic of the two genomes inherited from your parents (which were mosaics of the genomes they inherited from their parents). Since this happens every generation, tracts of DNA inherited from a particular individual get broken into smaller and smaller segments over time.

    When researchers compared the Altai Neanderthal’s two genomes, there were long segments of practically identical DNA — runs of homozygosity. The abundance of especially long ROH — over 10 centimorgans (cM), a proxy unit for distance along a chromosome — indicates this individual’s parents shared ancestors within two generations. For instance, they could have had the same mother, but different fathers (the half sibling scenario) or shared both sets of grandparents (the double first cousins case). If they shared an ancestor much longer ago — say a great-great-great-great-great grandparent — the ROH would have been broken into shorter segments.

    Which was also the case: The researchers additionally counted smaller ROH (between 2.5 and 10 cM), and found the sum surpassed this count for present-day human populations, like the Karitiana of the Brazilian Amazon, known to be small isolated groups with a history of consanguinity. An abundance of short ROH can result from a small population size, past inbreeding or both, so it’s hard to say what’s driving the pattern in the Altai Neanderthal. But given the data available, it’s a fair hypothesis that consanguinity was common in this Neanderthal’s pedigree.


    How Common Was Consanguinity?
    Even if the Altai individual descended from a long line of inbreds, that’s just one Siberian population, living over 4000 miles from what is considered to be the Neanderthal heartland in Europe. The fact that the Altai population mated with kin doesn’t mean that behavior was typical for the species. So what about European Neanderthals?

    In 2017 researchers counted ROH in the genome of a roughly 50,000-year-old Neanderthal woman from Vindija, Croatia. This individual did not have abundant long tracts of matching DNA, indicating her parents were not close relatives. However, the quantity of short ROH (2.5 – 10 cM) was on par with the Altai Neanderthal and above present-day groups with a history of isolation and inbreeding.

    Several lines of evidence suggest inbreeding among Neanderthals from El Sidrón, Spain. At this site, over 2,500 bone fragments have been recovered, constituting at least 13 individuals of both sexes and various ages. Archaeologists investigating El Sidrón believe the skeletons represent a close-knit Neanderthal group that died together around 50,000 years ago (these Neanderthals also show signs of cannibalism, but that’s besides the point).

    Although full genomes aren’t available, portions of their DNA that have been sequenced are consistent with the group being close kin, who may have been too close. A 2011 paper, analyzing mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) — a small loop of genetic code passed on only by mothers — revealed low diversity within the group. The adult males in particular seem to have been maternal kin. Another study fully sequenced chromosome 21 from one El Sidrón individual and found a similar pattern as in the Vindija Neanderthal: an abundance of short ROH.


    Skeletal abnormalities suggesting the El Sidron Neanderthals were inbred (Source: Rios et al 2019 Scientific Reports 9:1697)

    And earlier this month, anthropologists reported hard — skeletal — evidence for consanguinity among the El Sidrón Neanderthals. The team identified 17 bones, belonging to at least 4 individuals, showing congenital abnormalities. These are conditions present at birth, as opposed to ones developed during life through injury, infection or nutritional deficiencies. In the El Sidrón remains, the congenital features included cleft or asymmetric vertebrae, a misshapen kneecap and a baby tooth retained into adulthood. The identified conditions are rare in living humans (between 3.8 to 0.00004 percent) and may be harmless, but they do occur more frequently in cases of inbreeding. In other words, these skeletal features suggest the parents were kin.



    Consequences of Consanguinity
    So some Neanderthals slept with their relatives. To understand the consequences for health and evolution, we can look to examples of consanguinity in living humans.

    And there’s no shortage of data: It’s estimated that today between 700 million and 1.2 billion people, or roughly 10 percent of the global population, are the offspring of second cousins or closer. The rates vary considerably across the planet, depending on cultural marriage customs. For instance, in North Africa first-cousin couples constitute nearly one-third of all marriages, whereas in the U.S. such unions are legally prohibited in 31 out of 50 states.

    Global prevalence of marriages between second cousins or closer in 2015 (Source: http://consang.net/index.php/Main_Page)
    Global prevalence of marriages between second cousins or closer in 2015 (Source: http://consang.net/index.php/Main_Page)

    Cultural and circumstantial sensitivities aside, at a basic biological level, consanguinity is bad. Let’s remember another a high school bio lesson: Mating between people with very similar genetic makeup — i.e. close kin — increases chances their children will have recessive genetic disorders. These are diseases, like Tay-Sachs or cystic fibrosis, that occur when you inherit two bad copies of a particular gene. If diseased gene variants run in a family, and members of that family are mating, there’s a good chance some children will be born with the condition.

    Beyond these cases of potentially fatal diseases, consanguinity also causes so-called inbreeding depression: inbred individuals have reduced evolutionary fitness, or survival and reproductive success. One study compared rates of death before age 10 between the children of first cousins and unrelated parents, considering over 2.14 million people across 15 countries. The analysis found “3.5 percent excess deaths” among first-cousin kids. Across many studies in different populations, consanguinity has been associated with undesirable traits, including low IQ and congenital heart disease.

    One’s survival depends on a variety of biological, social and economic factors. But even powerful and affluent families will suffer from inbreeding, as was the case with the Spanish Hapsburg royal dynasty.

    So what about Neanderthals? Until we have more genomes, it’s hard to gauge the prevalence of inbreeding and its impact on the species overall. But we can say confidently, some Neanderthals were inbred and that didn’t help their chances of surviving. Maybe it even contributed to their extinction. Hey, if inbreeding took down royal dynasties, it may have taken a toll on Neanderthals, too."

    Mike
    Furthest Y line=Patrick Whealen 1816-1874, b.Tipperary Co. Ire. d. Kincardine Ont.

    Y-DNA-RL21-L513-Z23516-BY11142('lost Irish 'C' boys?')

    FTDNA=P312+ P25+ M343+ M269+ M207+ M173+ L513+ U198- U152- U106- SRY2627- P66- P107- M73- M65- M37- M222- M18- M160- M153- M126- L705- L577- L193- L159.2- L1333-
    Big-Y=Z23516+
    23&me=L21+
    E.A.= S21-, S26-, S28-, S29-, S68-
    Geno 2 (N.G.P.) H1bd+

    Whalen/Phelan DNA Surname Project
    Hidden Content

  2. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to MikeWhalen For This Useful Post:

     Adrian Stevenson (03-10-2019),  CannabisErectusHibernius (03-09-2019),  Helen (03-14-2019),  J Man (03-09-2019),  JMcB (03-10-2019),  Judith (03-09-2019),  Onur Dincer (03-12-2019),  Osiris (03-11-2019),  palamede (03-10-2019),  Piquerobi (03-09-2019),  Saetro (03-10-2019),  traject (03-10-2019)

  3. #2
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    435
    Sex
    Location
    England
    Ethnicity
    Northern English
    Nationality
    British
    Y-DNA
    Brother I2-M26 I2a1a
    mtDNA
    H4a1a1a

    I have read a number of papers (sorry it wil take eons to refind the refs) say
    1) the effective population size of Neanderthal was much less than AMH, even than the out of Africa bottleneck
    2) there are large numbers of Neanderthal artifacts to indicate a much larger population size
    3) so the hypothesis to link these two pieces of information is that Neanderthal lived in very local populations, not mixing with distant groups, which became ever more inbred

    My personal speculation is that AMH had larger families, even than HGs, not least through sex based roles. I have read that Neanderthal females went hunting too, inferred from the degree of healed scars the woman had. It is not easy to have large families when injured and hunting.

    AMH usually practices outbreeding (yes I know some cultures like cousin marriage but not all). One result is that the only descendant of Neanderthal is within us.
    Image “Westray wifie” replica of Neolithic figurine Hidden Content
    Out of 64 pre 1800 births 45% Cheshire, 1% Irish (or Scottish), 25% south Derbyshire, 13% Burton on Trent area (where 4 counties within 10 miles), 7% Shropshire, 1% Staffs, 8% Lancs. So far all British Isles despite what some testing companies say.

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Judith For This Useful Post:

     MikeWhalen (03-10-2019),  Onur Dincer (03-12-2019),  palamede (03-11-2019),  Piquerobi (03-09-2019),  Saetro (03-10-2019)

  5. #3
    Registered Users
    Posts
    502
    Location
    Brazil
    Nationality
    Brazilian

    Brazil
    That's interesting! Most likely several causes were at play... the most important, IMO, being the arrival of the so-called "modern human".

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Piquerobi For This Useful Post:

     MikeWhalen (03-10-2019),  Onur Dincer (03-12-2019),  Saetro (03-10-2019)

  7. #4
    Gold Member Class
    Posts
    869
    Sex
    Location
    Brisbane
    Nationality
    Australian
    Y-DNA
    T-P322 (T1a2b1)
    mtDNA
    H6a1

    Australia Cornwall England Scotland Germany Poland
    Among the slew of papers on Neanderthals that notes that climate changed and discusses what this meant for Neanderthals is the following paper, showing that moving towards 40,000 years ago, they were broken into smaller groups.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...31018217309094
    Melchionna et al 2018 Fragmentation and habitat loss
    Abstract - portion
    all these landscape metrics showed a progressive deterioration for H. neanderthalensis only over time. At the end of their existence, the most suitable habitat patches for Neanderthals were small and isolated, and their inferred climatic niche width was statistically narrower than in H. sapiens. This does not mean that climate worsening drove Neanderthals extinct, yet it suggests extinction risk for the latter markedly increased over time, towards its actual extinction date.
    Inbreeding would therefore have been a bigger problem.


    My favorite paper on Neanderthals and climate change is one I could not turn up right now.
    It notes that when the climate turned colder, humans had nimbler fingers that could handle fine and delicate moves.
    Humans were able to sew skins together for better cold protection, whereas Neanderthals could not.
    I think that was probably a third level factor after the others discussed here.
    Basically, whether it was climate change, or humans with their sewing skills, wolves/dogs to help them to hunt or whatever, every factor seems to have been worse for Neanderthals.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Saetro For This Useful Post:

     Judith (03-11-2019),  MikeWhalen (03-10-2019),  Onur Dincer (03-12-2019),  Piquerobi (03-10-2019)

  9. #5
    Registered Users
    Posts
    103
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Judith View Post
    I have read a number of papers (sorry it wil take eons to refind the refs) say
    1) the effective population size of Neanderthal was much less than AMH, even than the out of Africa bottleneck
    2) there are large numbers of Neanderthal artifacts to indicate a much larger population size
    3) so the hypothesis to link these two pieces of information is that Neanderthal lived in very local populations, not mixing with distant groups, which became ever more inbred

    My personal speculation is that AMH had larger families, even than HGs, not least through sex based roles. I have read that Neanderthal females went hunting too, inferred from the degree of healed scars the woman had. It is not easy to have large families when injured and hunting.

    AMH usually practices outbreeding (yes I know some cultures like cousin marriage but not all). One result is that the only descendant of Neanderthal is within us.

    This also relates to the self-domestication hypothesis. If one takes bonobos to be self-domesticated chimpanzees, strikingly divergent behavior noticed among bonobos is the willingness to practice risky play behaviors between infants and children of different groups. Needless to say among chimpanzees, such behavior is unimaginable. Perhaps a similar analogy could be given here between AMH and Neanderthals.

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to traject For This Useful Post:

     Judith (03-11-2019),  MikeWhalen (03-10-2019),  Onur Dincer (03-12-2019),  Saetro (03-12-2019)

  11. #6
    Registered Users
    Posts
    95
    Sex
    Location
    USA
    Ethnicity
    Danish/German/British
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA
    R- S11493
    mtDNA
    K1a4a1

    Denmark Germany Northern Ireland England Scotland Wales
    duplicate post
    Last edited by uintah106; 03-10-2019 at 09:48 PM.

  12. #7
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,357
    Sex
    Location
    America
    Ethnicity
    North & Ionian Seas
    Nationality
    American

    England Italy Germany Scotland
    I'm sure there was interbreeding, but as with most animal species, competition is what did in the inferior species. if adaptation doesn't occur, extinction takes place.


    lions and leopards live in the same regions and hunt some of the same prey. however they've each adapted a different way of doing so therefor both survive. (relatively)primitive humans and various primates inhabit the same areas, but they do not compete for the same food and resources therefor they both survive.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JerryS. For This Useful Post:

     Drewcastle (Yesterday),  Onur Dincer (03-17-2019)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-26-2016, 02:12 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-21-2016, 06:52 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-04-2016, 03:43 AM
  4. Inbreeding shaped the course of human evolution
    By Jean M in forum Human Evolution
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-29-2013, 02:37 PM
  5. Colonial inbreeding and its effects on my results
    By botoole60611 in forum Other
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-25-2012, 02:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •