Skip to main content

Taking your time makes a difference: Brain development differs between Neanderthals and modern humans

Neanderthals are the closest relatives to modern humans. Comparisons with them can therefore provide fascinating insights into what makes present-day humans unique, for example regarding the development of the brain. The neocortex, the largest part of the outer layer of the brain, is unique to mammals and crucial for many cognitive capacities. It expanded dramatically during human evolution in species ancestral to both Neanderthals and modern humans, resulting that both Neanderthals and modern humans having brains of similar sizes. However, almost nothing is known about how modern human and Neanderthal brains may have differed in terms of their development and function. 

For more such news & interesting articles or how can it affect in your life subscribe to our newsletter.

Researchers from the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics (MPI-CBG) in Dresden and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (MPI-EVA) in Leipzig have now discovered that neural stem cells—the cells from which neurons in the developing neocortex derive—spend more time preparing their chromosomes for division in modern humans than in Neanderthals. This results in fewer errors when chromosomes are distributed to the daughter cells in modern humans than in Neanderthals or chimpanzees, and could have consequences for how the brain develops and functions. This study shows cellular differences in the development of the brain between modern humans and Neanderthals.

After the ancestors of modern humans split from those of Neanderthals and Denisovans, their Asian relatives, about one hundred amino acids, the building blocks of proteins in cells and tissues, changed in modern humans and spread to almost all modern humans. The biological significance of these changes is largely unknown. However, six of those amino acid changes occurred in three proteins that play key roles in the distribution of chromosomes, the carriers of genetic information, to the two daughter cells during cell division.

The effects of the modern human variants on brain development

To investigate the significance of these six changes for neocortex development, the scientists first introduced the modern human variants in mice. Mice are identical to Neanderthals at those six amino acid positions, so these changes made them a model for the developing modern human brain. Felipe Mora-Bermúdez, the lead author of the study, describes the discovery: "We found that three modern human amino acids in two of the proteins cause a longer metaphase, a phase where chromosomes are prepared for cell division, and this results in fewer errors when the chromosomes are distributed to the daughter cells of the neural stem cells, just like in modern humans." To check if the Neanderthal set of amino acids have the opposite effect, the researchers then introduced the ancestral amino acids in human brain organoids—miniature organ-like structures that can be grown from human stem cells in cell culture dishes in the lab and that mimic aspects of early human brain development. "In this case, metaphase became shorter and we found more chromosome distribution errors." According to Mora-Bermúdez, this shows that those three modern human amino acid changes in the proteins known as KIF18a and KNL1 are responsible for the fewer chromosome distribution mistakes seen in modern humans as compared to Neanderthal models and chimpanzees. He adds that "having mistakes in the number of chromosomes is usually not a good idea for cells, as can be seen in disorders like trisomies and cancer."

"Our study implies that some aspects of modern human brain evolution and function may be independent of brain size since Neanderthals and modern humans have similar-sized brains. The findings also suggest that brain function in Neanderthals may have been more affected by chromosome errors than that of modern humans," says Wieland Huttner, who co-supervised the study. Svante Pääbo, who also co-supervised the study, adds that "future studies are needed to investigate whether the decreased error rate affects modern human traits related to brain function." 

For more such news & interesting articles or how can it affect in your life subscribe to our newsletter.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Computers that power self-driving cars could be a huge driver of global carbon emissions

In the future, the energy needed to run the powerful computers on board a global fleet of autonomous vehicles could generate as many greenhouse gas emissions as all the data centers in the world today.  Join our   whatsapp group for latest articles updates. That is one key finding of a new study from MIT researchers that explored the potential energy consumption and related carbon emissions if autonomous vehicles are widely adopted. The data centers that house the physical computing infrastructure used for running applications are widely known for their large carbon footprint: They currently account for about 0.3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, or about as much carbon as the country of Argentina produces annually, according to the International Energy Agency. Realizing that less attention has been paid to the potential footprint of ...

Novel design helps develop powerful microbatteries

Translating electrochemical performance of large format batteries to microscale power sources has been a long-standing technological challenge, limiting the ability of batteries to power microdevices, microrobots and implantable medical devices. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign researchers have created a high-voltage microbattery (> 9 V), with high-energy and -power density, unparalleled by any existing battery design.  Join our   whatsapp group for latest articles updates. Material Science and Engineering Professor Paul Braun (Grainger Distinguished Chair in Engineering, Materials Research Laboratory Director), Dr. Sungbong Kim (Postdoc, MatSE, current assistant professor at Korea Military Academy, co-first author), and Arghya Patra (Graduate Student, MatSE, MRL, co-first author) recently published their paper "Serially integrated ...

ChatGPT writes convincing fake scientific abstracts that fool reviewers in study

Could the new and wildly popular chatbot ChatGPT convincingly produce fake abstracts that fool scientists into thinking those studies are the real thing?  Join our   whatsapp group for latest articles updates. That was the question worrying Northwestern Medicine physician-scientist Dr. Catherine Gao when she designed a study—collaborating with University of Chicago scientists—to test that theory. Yes, scientists can be fooled, their new study reports. Blinded human reviewers—when given a mix real and falsely generated abstracts—could only spot ChatGPT generated abstracts 68% of the time. The reviewers also incorrectly identified 14% of real abstracts as being AI generated. "Our reviewers knew that some of the abstracts they were being given were fake, so they were very suspicious," said corresponding author Gao, an instructor in pulmonary an...