Scientists Create Neanderthal Genome

[Curiosity]

Scientists Create Neanderthal Genome

Wednesday, 8th November 2006, 19:06

Scientists are reconstructing the genome of Neanderthals - the close relations of modern man.

The ambitious project involves isolating genetic fragments from fossils of the prehistoric beings who originally inhabited Europe to map their complete DNA.

The Neanderthal people were believed to have died out about 35,000 years ago - at a time when modern humans were advancing across the continent.

Lead researcher Dr Svante Paabo, an evolutionary geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, said: "This would be the first time we have sequenced the entire genome of an extinct organism."

But the prospect of using the genome to produce a living Neanderthal has been ruled out.

A popular caricature portrays Neanderthals as beetle-browed brutes - but this is far from the truth, reports New Scientist.

"Neanderthals were sophisticated stone-tool makers and made razor-sharp knives out of flint," said Dr Richard Klein, an anthropologist at Stanford University, California.

"They made fires when and where they wanted and seem to have made a living by hunting large mammals such as bison and deer."

Neanderthals also buried their dead, which, fortunately for researchers, increases the odds of the bones being preserved.

"By sequencing their entire genome we can begin to learn more about their biology," said Dr Eddy Rubin, a geneticist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Walnut Creek, California.

The genetic questions could also solve the biggest mystery of all - why did Neanderthals die out while modern humans went on to conquer the globe?

Dr Paabo and colleagues pioneered the genetic study of Neanderthals by extracting and decoding fragments of
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from the bones of the original specimen, discovered in 1856 in the Neander Valley in Germany.

The mtDNA Dr Paabo sequenced suggested humans split from Neanderthals about 500,000 years ago - which fits neatly with the fossil record. It also suggested Neanderthals did not interbreed with our ancestors.

Dr Paabo's team have selected two Neanderthal specimens to work on based on the fact both have "clean" DNA that is
relatively uncontaminated.

One is a 38,000-year-old fossil from Vindija, Croatia. The other is the original specimen, which, despite being
extensively handled, has unusually clean DNA in its right upper arm bone.

During its lifetime the individual lost the use of its left arm after breaking it and had to rely on the right arm - causing the bones to grow thicker and denser than usual.

After death this shielded the DNA from contamination. The researchers are also hunting for new specimens that can be sampled before other people get their hands on them.

They have so far sequenced about a million base pairs of nuclear DNA from the Croatian fossil and hope to publish a draft of the whole genome in two years.

"It is definitely possible to sequence the entire genome from such well-preserved specimens," said Dr Eske Willerslev, an expert in ancient DNA at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

"Perhaps the biggest difficulty will be verifying the sequences obtained are genuinely from the Neanderthal genome and not a contaminant - as so much of it will be identical to the human genome."

The genome is sure to fuel the particularly intense controversy that has surrounded a
much-vaunted aspect of human uniqueness - language.

"There's been a debate going for more than 30 years about the speech capabilities of Neanderthals," says Dr Philip
Lieberman, a cognitive scientist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.

"It's clear from the fossil record and comparisons with modern humans that Neanderthals could speak."

But the prospect of the genome providing the blueprint for resurrecting a living "Jurassic-Park-style" Neanderthal is unlikely.

Dr Paabo said: "We would be able to create a physical Neanderthal genome but we will not be able to recreate a Neanderthal - even if we wanted to."

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=ZX830894R&rss=true

 

[humanbeing]

So cool... I've been looking forward to these developments for many months now. We've still got a ways to go yet. Getting the thing read or partly read is one thing, figuring out what it all means are a zillion more things and then some...

"It's clear from the fossil record and comparisons with modern humans that Neanderthals could speak."

I don't know the latest on biology, but I don't know any ways as to how the fossil record proves Neanderthals could speak like the article suggests. As far as I know, we cannot look at some animal's skull and say something like, "Yup, judging by the skull, this specimen has some built up framework of rules helping form their language (syntax)".
Maybe I'm wrong... I mean, I see how we might be able to do that with our own skulls, where "This part of the skull is where such and such a thing is, which in humans is partly responsible for this action or that action", but it's not so easy to just take that approach and apply it to other species.

 

[Tonington]

Since we are evolutionary cousins, they can compare our physiology with that of the Neanderthal, and the presence of the hyoid bone means that they could speak. Heres the definition for Hyoid bone:
Small U-shape free-floating bone in the neck in front of the voice box. It supports the muscles of the tongue and its funtion is to open the airway behind the tongue.
The genome of sea urchins has also been decoded, and shows many similarities with our own. They share a common ancestor with us as we are both part of the super phyllum Deutrostomia. The ancestor gave rise to the deuterostome phylla, and lived approximately 540 million years ago. This genome fills a gap between known genomes and the results will give us a better understanding of our own genome. It shows us which of our genes are new evolutionary inovations and which are ancient.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061109153835.htm

 

[humanbeing]

To me, the whole puzzle over speaking and language is found in figuring out things like syntax and how they developed in human beings, and how they might have existed in other species like Neanderthals.

You can't just look at some bones and see syntax in a creature, at least as far as I am aware. That is where some of the promise is in decoding the genome of a Neanderthal - or so I hope. Looking at such a close relative and comparing it with ourselves, chimps and other species is bound to shed lots of light on lots of different things... Things like syntax, which I don't think can be proven simply by looking at fossils.

 

[Tonington]

They don't need syntax to be able to speak, they would need syntax to have a sentance with grammar. There are other animals that speak to each other but they don't necessarily have syntax. Do whales have syntax? Or how about penguins, when the father or mother has to pick their own chicks voice out of the whole flock? Just because there is no syntax does not mean that they couldn't have understood what was being conveyed by the other neanderthal. It's entirey possible that they did have syntax, as you said that is not something that fossils can prove or disprove.

 

[humanbeing]

They don't need syntax to be able to speak, they would need syntax to have a sentance with grammar. There are other animals that speak to each other but they don't necessarily have syntax. Do whales have syntax? Or how about penguins, when the father or mother has to pick their own chicks voice out of the whole flock? Just because there is no syntax does not mean that they couldn't have understood what was being conveyed by the other neanderthal. It's entirey possible that they did have syntax, as you said that is not something that fossils can prove or disprove.

Exactly. That's my point, though I am sorry I did not make it clearly at first. Guess I did no better than the article...

"There's been a debate going for more than 30 years about the speech capabilities of Neanderthals," says Dr Philip
Lieberman, a cognitive scientist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.

"It's clear from the fossil record and comparisons with modern humans that Neanderthals could speak."

The debate is over speech capabilities, and I guess my point is that the fellow saying they could speak does not end the debate.

 

[Tonington]

I fully agree with that assessment.

 

[tamarin]

With the work on Neanderthals progressing, more dark secrets will emerge. The world community was shocked when it was revealed earlier this year that humans and chimpanzees were still interbreeding less than 7 million years ago. It doesn't take high math to assume some splintering in the human tree. We need to learn more about who we are and aren't. Genome projects are important and results, even when dismaying, must be released.

 

[Tonington]

Indeed, I'm sure there are people out there who resent the findings that we are related to sea urchins.

 

[tamarin]

Sea urchins and more! It troubles me many a day now when I look into the eye of some stranger that often so little registers. Only A gulf emanating from a spec-ial split time immemorial ago could have caused this. We are a species not dominated by races but sub-species. And scientists are afraid to allow the words to form on their lips. The few per cent that separate us from other species and individuate the races within the human family are huge in their importance as far as how they affect behaviour and susceptibilities. But that's not the real story. The species subsets are. We're all in there. Let the Genome Project proceed and let no one silence what we must know about those we share our homes and streets with.
Hey, this sounds like lunacy. Methinks though there's more truth in it than one in his wildest moments might hope to believe.

 

[Curiosity]

What will everyone bitch about if there are no racial slurs???

I love the idea of being descended from sea urchins...well the urchin part anyway.