Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday July 25 2017, @02:11AM   Printer-friendly
from the spittle dept.

The scientists came upon their findings while researching the purpose and origins of the MUC7 protein, which helps give spit its slimy consistency and binds to microbes, potentially helping to rid the body of disease-causing bacteria.

As part of this investigation, the team examined the MUC7 gene in more than 2,500 modern human genomes. The analysis yielded a surprise: A group of genomes from Sub-Saharan Africa had a version of the gene that was wildly different from versions found in other modern humans.

The Sub-Saharan variant was so distinctive that Neanderthal and Denisovan MUC7 genes matched more closely with those of other modern humans than the Sub-Saharan outlier did.

"Based on our analysis, the most plausible explanation for this extreme variation is archaic introgression -- the introduction of genetic material from a 'ghost' species of ancient hominins," Gokcumen says. "This unknown human relative could be a species that has been discovered, such as a subspecies of Homo erectus, or an undiscovered hominin. We call it a 'ghost' species because we don't have the fossils."

Those Sub-Saharan hominins were horny, baby.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by JNCF on Tuesday July 25 2017, @04:31AM

    by JNCF (4317) on Tuesday July 25 2017, @04:31AM (#544011) Journal

    Previously, they've most been matching up DNA from closely related races - Neanderthals and Denisovans - with HSS Eurasian DNA and claiming it must be archaic introgression because it's not found in Africa. Now they're finding more somatic DNA that looks like it could be an archaic introgression from the same source - but in sub saharan africa! And amazingly enough that does not, apparently, prompt any rethought of the basic hypothesis at all.

    TFA clearly says "other early hominins" in a relevant context -- so a different source, not the same (Neanderthal and Denisovan) sources. This is not the contradiction you're looking for.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3