New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Neandertals Live On in Our Genomes

Researchers found that Neandertal gene variants still affect the way genes are turned off and on in modern humans. Christopher Intagliata reports. 

Photodisc

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Fifty thousand years ago, Homo sapiens weren't the only game in town. We were just one of several species of hominids roaming the Earth, like the Neandertals in Eurasia. And when our sapiens ancestors came in contact with them, they sometimes hooked up. Which means many people today of Eurasian descent still carry copies of Neandertal genes. But what do those genes do?

Researchers tried to answer that question by examining the modern human genome. And they found that, on average, Neandertal versions of genes are not active as much as their modern human counterparts in the brain—and the testicles. Meaning Neandertal variants have less influence there. Possibly, researchers say, because those tissues underwent significant changes since what became modern humans and Neandertals diverged 700,000 years ago.

"Really, our results show that Neandertal sequences that are present in modern humans aren't just silent remnants of hybridization that occurred 50,000 years ago, but they really have widespread measurable impacts on gene expression to this day." Rajiv McCoy, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Washington. In other words, genes we got from Neandertals play roles in the activation of various other of our genes, leading to the production of different kinds of proteins. 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The study is in the journal Cell. [Rajiv C. McCoy et al., Impacts of Neanderthal-Introgressed Sequences on the Landscape of Human Gene Expression]

It also turns out that, for one gene in particular, if you carry the Neandertal mutation, "you have slightly lower risk of schizophrenia. And you also have slightly increased height on average."

The Neandertals left their mark on lots of modern human traits, in addition to schizophrenia and height. But McCoy says, keep in mind: "These are complex traits. And they're controlled by thousands of different genes, and we're measuring statistically significant effects." Neandertals are long gone—but some of their genes live on.  

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.] 

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe