Neandertal Mitochondrial DNA Sequenced
The first full sequence of a Neandertal genome doesn't fully negate the possibility that they mixed with us. But the mitochondrial DNA sequence falls outside the range of current human variation. Steve Mirsky reports
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
Neandertals were our closest relatives. And now we know a lot more about them. Because researchers have for the first time sequenced a complete Neandertal genome—that of their mitochondrial DNA. The study appears in the August 8th issue of the journal Cell.
We all have a large genome in our cell nuclei. Then there’s a separate genome only in mitochondria, those organelles forever immortalized in textbooks as the powerhouse of the cell. The Neandertal DNA sequence falls outside the variation range found in humans today. It also confirms that the last common ancestor of us and Neandertals lived some time between 800,000 and 520,000 years ago.
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 new info shows that a disproportionate number of Neandertal sequence differences change the amino acid sequences in proteins. One explanation would be that Neandertals had a smaller population size. Which would give natural selection fewer options to choose from. So, did Neandertals mix with our direct ancestors? The sequence finds no evidence for such mixing. But we’ll have to wait for a full nuclear genome sequence to be sure.
—Steve Mirsky
60-Second Science is a daily podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes
It’s Time to Stand Up for Science
If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.
I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.
If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.
