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.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Arik on Tuesday July 25 2017, @07:30PM (1 child)
The article is full of this, all you needed to read was the executive summary at the top:
"In saliva, scientists have found hints that a 'ghost' species of archaic humans may have contributed genetic material to ancestors of people living in sub-Saharan Africa today. The research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that sexual rendezvous between different archaic human species may not have been unusual. "
And all through the article, for instance:
""It seems that interbreeding between different early hominin species is not the exception -- it's the norm," says Omer Gokcumen, PhD, an assistant professor of biological sciences in the University at Buffalo College of Arts and Sciences."
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday July 25 2017, @08:11PM
Again, where does that say lost or re-introduced?
What is this, some sort of weird anti-evolution angle I'm just not getting?
Your argument makes no sense.