Abstract
Two recently published papers describe nuclear DNA sequences that were obtained from the same Neanderthal fossil. Our reanalyses of the data from these studies show that they are not consistent with each other and point to serious problems with the data quality in one of the studies, possibly due to modern human DNA contaminants and/or a high rate of sequencing errors.
Highlights
The simultaneous publication of two studies with Neanderthal nuclear DNA sequences [1,2] was a technological breakthrough that held promise for answering a longstanding question in human evolution: Did ‘‘archaic’’ groups of humans, such as Neanderthals, make any substantial contribution to the extant human gene pool? The conclusions of the two studies, were puzzling and possibly contradictory
We estimate a modern EuropeanNeanderthal population split time of 35 thousand y ago (Kya) for the Green et al data and a split time of 325 Kya for the Noonan et al data
When we fix the modern European– Neanderthal split time at 325 Kya, the Neanderthal admixture estimates are 94% for the Green et al data and 0% for the Noonan et al data
Summary
The simultaneous publication of two studies with Neanderthal nuclear DNA sequences [1,2] was a technological breakthrough that held promise for answering a longstanding question in human evolution: Did ‘‘archaic’’ groups of humans, such as Neanderthals, make any substantial contribution to the extant human gene pool? The conclusions of the two studies, were puzzling and possibly contradictory. The Green et al [2] study found a much more recent divergence time and made two striking observations that were highly suggestive of a substantial amount of admixture between Neanderthals and modern humans. Green et al [2] reported a human–Neanderthal DNA sequence divergence time of ;516,000 y (95% CI: 465– 569 thousand y) and a human–human DNA sequence divergence time of ;459,000 y (95% CI: 419–498 thousand y). These two CIs overlap substantially, suggesting that the Neanderthal–human divergence might be within the realm of modern human genetic variation. In contrast to the Green et al study, the comparable percentage from the Noonan et al [1] data is only 3% (95% CI: 0%–9%)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
