1. Inferring archaic introgression from hominin genetic data
- Author
-
Laura T. Buck, Elizabeth G. Atkinson, Brenna M. Henn, Shyamalika Gopalan, and Timothy D. Weaver
- Subjects
History ,Neanderthal ,Review Article ,genetics ,0601 history and archaeology ,Review Articles ,Neanderthals ,0303 health sciences ,education.field_of_study ,GE ,biology ,Hominidae ,06 humanities and the arts ,General Medicine ,CC ,archaic hominins ,Biological Evolution ,Mitochondrial ,Archaeology ,GN ,Social Work ,Population ,introgression ,Introgression ,Genetic Introgression ,DNA, Mitochondrial ,Anthropology, Physical ,Ancient ,QH301 ,03 medical and health sciences ,biology.animal ,Physical ,Animals ,Humans ,DNA, Ancient ,education ,QH426 ,ancient DNA ,030304 developmental biology ,Evolutionary Biology ,060101 anthropology ,DNA ,Human genetics ,Evolutionary anthropology ,Ancient DNA ,Evolutionary biology ,Homo sapiens ,Anthropology ,Paleoanthropology ,Generic health relevance - Abstract
Questions surrounding the timing, extent, and evolutionary consequences of archaic admixture into human populations have a long history in evolutionary anthropology. More recently, advances in human genetics, particularly in the field of ancient DNA, have shed new light on the question of whether or not Homo sapiens interbred with other hominin groups. By the late 1990s, published genetic work had largely concluded that archaic groups made no lasting genetic contribution to modern humans; less than a decade later, this conclusion was reversed following the successful DNA sequencing of an ancient Neanderthal. This reversal of consensus is noteworthy, but the reasoning behind it is not widely understood across all academic communities. There remains a communication gap between population geneticists and paleoanthropologists. In this review, we endeavor to bridge this gap by outlining how technological advancements, new statistical methods, and notable controversies ultimately led to the current consensus.
- Published
- 2021