Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Selection against archaic hominin genetic variation in regulatory regions

Abstract

Traces of Neandertal and Denisovan DNA persist in the modern human gene pool, but have been systematically purged by natural selection from genes and other functionally important regions. This implies that many archaic alleles harmed the fitness of hybrid individuals, but the nature of this harm is poorly understood. Here, we show that enhancers contain less Neandertal and Denisovan variation than expected given the background selection they experience, suggesting that selection acted to purge these regions of archaic alleles that disrupted their gene regulatory functions. We infer that selection acted mainly on young archaic variation that arose in Neandertals or Denisovans shortly before their contact with humans; enhancers are not depleted of older variants found in both archaic species. Some types of enhancer appear to have tolerated introgression better than others; compared with tissue-specific enhancers, pleiotropic enhancers show stronger depletion of archaic single-nucleotide polymorphisms. To some extent, evolutionary constraint is predictive of introgression depletion, but certain tissues’ enhancers are more depleted of Neandertal and Denisovan alleles than expected given their comparative tolerance to new mutations. Foetal brain and muscle are the tissues whose enhancers show the strongest depletion of archaic alleles, but only brain enhancers show evidence of unusually stringent purifying selection. We conclude that epistatic incompatibilities between human and archaic alleles are needed to explain the degree of archaic variant depletion from foetal muscle enhancers, perhaps due to divergent selection for higher muscle mass in archaic hominins compared with humans.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Introgressed variants are depleted from enhancers and exons relative to matched control variants.
Fig. 2: Archaic variant depletion is correlated with the number of cell types in which an enhancer is active.
Fig. 3: Neandertal and Denisovan variant depletion varies between enhancers active in different tissues.
Fig. 4: Different landscapes of young and old introgressed archaic variation.
Fig. 5: Rare variant enrichment reveals that enhancer sequences are weakly selectively constrained.

Data availability

All datasets analysed here are publicly available at the following websites: CRF introgression calls (https://sriramlab.cass.idre.ucla.edu/public/sankararaman.curbio.2016/summaries.tgz); SGDP (https://www.simonsfoundation.org/simons-genome-diversity-project/); RoadMap (https://personal.broadinstitute.org/meuleman/reg2map/HoneyBadger2_release/); and 1000 Genomes Phase 3 (http://www.1000genomes.org/category/phase-3/).

Code availability

Summary data files and custom python scripts for reproducing the paper’s main figures are available at https://github.com/kelleyharris/hominin-enhancers/.

References

  1. 1.

    Green, R. E. et al. A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome. Science 328, 710–722 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Prüfer, K. et al. The complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai mountains. Nature 505, 43–49 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Vernot, B. et al. Excavating Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA from the genomes of Melanesian individuals. Science 352, 235–239 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Chen, L., Wolf, A., Fu, W., Li, L. & Akey, J. Identifying and interpreting apparent Neandertal ancestry in African individuals. Cell 180, 677–687 (2020).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Sankararaman, S. et al. The genomic landscape of Neanderthal ancestry in present-day humans. Nature 507, 354–357 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Vernot, B. & Akey, J. M. Resurrecting surviving Neandertal lineages from modern human genomes. Science 343, 1017–1021 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Sankararaman, S., Mallick, S., Patterson, N. & Reich, D. The combined landscape of Denisovan and Neanderthal ancestry in present-day humans. Curr. Biol. 26, 1241–1247 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Petr, M., Pääbo, S., Kelso, J. & Vernot, B. Limits of long-term selection against Neandertal introgression. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 1639–1644 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    King, M. & Wilson, A. Evolution at two levels in humans and chimpanzees. Science 188, 107–116 (1975).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Enard, W. et al. Intra- and interspecific variation in primate gene expression patterns. Science 296, 340–343 (2002).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Wray, G. The evolutionary significance of cis-regulatory mutations. Nat. Rev. Genet. 8, 206–216 (2007).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Dannemann, M., Prüfer, K. & Kelso, J. Functional implications of Neanderthal introgression in modern humans. Genome Biol. 18, 61 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    McCoy, R., Wakefield, J. & Akey, J. Impacts of Neanderthal-introgressed sequences on the landscape of human gene expression. Cell 168, 916–927 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Castellano, S. et al. Patterns of coding variation in the complete exams of three Neanderthals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 6666–6671 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Hahn, M. Detecting natural selection on cis-regulatory DNA. Genetica 129, 7–18 (2007).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Long, H., Prescott, S. & Wysocka, J. Ever-changing landscapes: transcriptional enhancers in development and evolution. Cell 167, 1170–1187 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Wong, W. & Nielsen, R. Detecting selection in noncoding regions of nucleotide sequences. Genetics 167, 949–958 (2004).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Torgerson, D. et al. Evolutionary processes acting on candidate cis-regulatory regions in humans inferred from patterns of polymorphism and divergence. PLoS Genet. 5, e1000592 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Ward, L. & Kellis, M. Evidence of abundant purifying selection in humans for recently acquired regulatory functions. Science 337, 1675–1678 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Smith, J., McManus, K. & Fraser, H. A novel test for selection on cis-regulatory elements reveals positive and negative selection acting on mammalian transcriptional enhancers. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 2509–2518 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Arbiza, L. et al. Genome-wide inference of natural selection on human transcription factor binding sites. Nat. Genet. 45, 723–729 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Huerta-Sánchez, E. et al. Altitude adaptation in Tibetans caused by introgression of Denisovan-like DNA. Nature 512, 194–197 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Prabhakar, S. et al. Human-specific gain of function in a developmental enhancer. Science 321, 1346–1350 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Capra, J., Erwin, G., McKinsey, G., Rubenstein, J. & Pollard, K. Many human accelerated regions are developmental enhancers. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20130023 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Rinker, D. et al. Neanderthal introgression reintroduced functional ancestral alleles lost in Eurasian populations. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1261-z (2020).

  26. 26.

    Silvert, M., Quintana-Murci, L. & Rotival, M. Impact and evolutionary determinants of Neanderthal introgression on transcriptional and post-transcriptional regulation. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 104, 1241–1250 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Mallick, S. et al. The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 genomes from 142 diverse populations. Nature 538, 201–206 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    McVicker, G., Gordon, D., Davis, C. & Green, P. Widespread genomic signatures of natural selection in hominid evolution. PLoS Genet. 5, e1000471 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Enard, D. & Petrov, D. Evidence that RNA viruses drove adaptive introgression between Neanderthals and modern humans. Cell 175, 360–371 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Roadmap Epigenomics Consortium et al.Integrative analysis of 111 reference human epigenomes. Nature 518, 317–330 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Sabarinathan, R., Mularoni, L., Deu-Pons, J., Gonzalez-Perez, A. & Lopez-Bigas, N. Nucleotide excision repair is impaired by binding of transcription factors to DNA. Nature 532, 264–267 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Kaiser, V., Taylor, M. & Semple, C. Mutational biases drive elevated rates of substitution at regulatory sites across cancer types. PLoS Genet. 12, e1006207 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Quach, H. et al. Genetic adaptation and Neandertal admixture shaped the immune system of human populations. Cell 167, 643–656 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Nédélec, Y. et al. Genetic ancestry and natural selection drive population differences in immune responses to pathogens. Cell 167, 657–669 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Dannemann, M., Andrés, A. & Kelso, J. Introgression of Neanderthal- and Denisovan-like haplotypes contributes to adaptive variation in human Toll-like receptors. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 98, 22–33 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Browning, S., Browning, B., Zhou, Y., Tucci, S. & Akey, J. Analysis of human sequence data reveals two pulses of archaic Denisovan admixture. Cell 173, 53–61 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Reich, D. et al. Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia. Nature 468, 1053–1060 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Slon, V. et al. The genome of the offspring of a Neanderthal mother and a Denisovan father. Nature 561, 113–116 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Sawyer, S. & Hartl, D. Population genetics of polymorphism and divergence. Genetics 132, 1161–1176 (1992).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Boyko, A. et al. Assessing the evolutionary impact of amino acid mutations in the human genome. PLoS Genet. 4, e1000083 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Griffiths, R. The frequency spectrum of a mutation, and its age, in a general diffusion model. Theor. Popul. Biol. 64, 241–251 (2003).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Meunier, J. & Duret, L. Recombination drives the evolution of GC-content in the human genome. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21, 984–990 (2004).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Fish, A., Chen, L. & Capra, J. Gene regulatory enhancers with evolutionarily conserved activity are more pleiotropic than those with species-specific activity. Genome Biol. Evol. 9, 2615–2625 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Harris, K. & Nielsen, R. The genetic cost of Neanderthal introgression. Genetics 203, 881–891 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Juric, I., Aeschbacher, S. & Coop, G. The strength of selection against Neanderthal introgression. PLoS Genet. 12, e1006340 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Schumer, M. et al. Natural selection interacts with recombination to shape the evolution of hybrid genomes. Science 360, 656–660 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Stone, J. & Wray, G. Rapid evolution of cis-regulatory sequences via local point mutations. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18, 1764–1770 (2001).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    MacArthur, S. & Brookfield, J. Expected rates and modes of evolution of enhancer sequences. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21, 1064–1073 (2004).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Nord, A. et al. Rapid and pervasive changes in genome-wide enhancer usage during mammalian development. Cell 155, 1521–1531 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Ruff, C., Trinkaus, E. & Holliday, T. Body mass and encephalization in Pleistocene Homo. Nature 387, 173–176 (1997).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Churchill, S. in Neanderthals Revisited: New Approaches and Perspectives (eds Hublin, J. et al.) 113–133 (Springer, 2006).

  52. 52.

    Gulsuner, S. et al. Spatial and temporal mapping of de novo mutations in schizophrenia to a fetal prefrontal cortical network. Cell 154, 518–529 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Turner, T. et al. Genomic patterns of de novo mutation in simplex autism. Cell 171, 710–722 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Short, P. et al. De novo mutations in regulatory elements in neurodevelopment disorders. Nature 555, 611–616 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Steinrücken, M., Spence, J., Kamm, J., Wieczorek, E. & Song, Y. Model-based detection and analysis of introgressed Neanderthal ancestry in modern humans. Mol. Ecol. 27, 3873–3888 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Khaitovich, P. et al. Parallel patterns of evolution in the genomes and transcriptomes of humans and chimpanzees. Science 309, 1850–1854 (2005).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Coolon, J., McManus, C., Stevenson, K., Graveley, B. & Wittkopp, P. Tempo and model of regulatory evolution in Drosophila. Genome Res. 24, 797–808 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Turner, L., White, M., Tautz, D. & Payseur, B. Genomic networks of hybrid sterility. PLoS Genet. 10, e1004162 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Mack, K., Campbell, P. & Nachman, M. Gene regulation and speciation in house mice. Genome Res. 26, 451–461 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Lewis, J., van der Burg, K., Mazo-Vargas, A. & Reed, R. ChIP-Seq-annotated Heliconius erato genome highlights patterns of cis-regulatory evolution in Lepidoptera. Cell Rep. 16, 2855–2863 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to J. Pritchard, S. Sankararaman, J. Schraiber and members of the Harris Laboratory for helpful discussions. We thank R. Nielsen and B. Vernot for manuscript comments. We acknowledge financial support from the following grants awarded to K.H.: NIH grant 1R35GM133428-01; a Burroughs Wellcome Fund Career Award at the Scientific Interface; a Searle scholarship; a Sloan Research fellowship; and a Pew Biomedical scholarship.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

N.T. and K.H. conceived of and designed the project. N.T., R.A. and K.H. performed the analyses. K.H. wrote the paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Natalie Telis or Kelley Harris.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publishers note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Replication of archaic SNP depletion after sampling control SNPs in clusters.

This plot replicates the analysis from Fig. 1b using archaic SNPs and controls sampled to match the clustering induced by LD structure. The depletion of archaic SNPs from exon and enhancers is nearly identical to the depletion measured using controls not sampled to match the spatial clustering of introgressed SNPs.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Human versus archaic reference sequence divergence as a function of enhancer pleiotropy and tissue activity.

a, Within enhancers and exons, we measured divergence of the human reference from the Altai Neandertal, the Altai Denisovan, and the YRI African genomes, then normalized each by the divergence of the same genomes within adjacent control regions. Exon divergence ratios <1 indicate that purifying selection has slowed down their sequence evolution compared to less constrained adjacent regions. In contrast, divergence is accelerated in enhancers relative to control regions. This acceleration is positively correlated with pleiotropy and is stronger for archaic vs. human comparisons than for the African vs. human reference genome comparison. In the absence of selection against archaic enhancer variation, this divergence pattern should cause archaic SNPs to be enriched within high-pleiotropy enhancers, not depleted as we in fact observe. b, We see no correlation across tissue-specific enhancer sets between Neandertal divergence from the human reference and archaic allele depletion from enhancers. This suggests that differences between tissues in the depletion of introgressed archaic variants are not driven by differences in divergence between reference genomes. c, We see no correlation across tissue-specific enhancer sets between Denisovan divergence from the human reference and archaic allele depletion from enhancers. All error bars in panels ac are 95% confidence intervals derived from the binomial approximation to the Bernoulli distribution.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Neandertal and Denisovan variant depletion as a function of enhancer tissue activity.

These plots show the data from Fig. 3a with Neandertal and Denisovan odds ratios on separate plots for clarity.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Joint distributions of Neandertal and Denisovan SNP depletion within each SGDP population.

Although there are differences between populations, particularly since Denisovan introgression is sparse and noisy, all show that brain and fetal muscle enhancers are the most depleted of introgression. In most populations the ‘Blood & T-cell’ tissue is least depleted of introgression.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Counts of young and old archaic alleles present in modern populations and shared by archaic reference genomes.

a, Recall that ‘young’ introgression calls are SNPs that appear in Call Set 2 generated by Sankararaman, et al. while ‘old’ calls appear in Call Set 1 for at least one archaic species but not in either set of young calls. In every modern human population, we find that 20-30% of old introgressed SNPs are shared with both the Altai Neandertal and Altai Denisovan, suggesting they likely predate the divergence of Neandertals and Denisovans or are at least old enough to have passed between the two species by gene flow. b, In contrast, only 10-20% of young introgressed SNPs are present in both archaic reference genomes. Over 45% of young Neandertal alleles are shared with the Altai Neandertal but not the Altai Denisovan; conversely, over 45% of young Denisovan alleles are shared with only the Denisovan reference. Compared to the sets of young Neandertal and Denisovan alleles, old Neandertal and Denisovan alleles look more similar to each other in their archaic reference sharing profiles: each contains 10-25% Neandertal-specific alleles and 2-10% Denisovan-specific alleles. These patterns support our hypothesis that the old calls are indeed older than the young calls. c, This panel shows the numbers of introgressed SNPs classified as young versus old within each population. Each SNP set is further subdivided into SNPs that appear in the Neandertal call set only, the Denisovan call set only, or the intersection of both call sets.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Site frequency spectra of introgressed SNPs classified as young versus old in each SGDP population.

For each call set, the corresponding vertical line demarcates the mean allele frequency of that category. In each population, the old ‘1 minus 2’ call set has the highest mean allele frequency, adding support to our hypothesis that these variants are older and/or less deleterious than either population-specific Call Set 2.

Extended Data Fig. 7 GC content cannot explain differences in singleton enrichment between tissues.

a, We partitioned the site frequency spectra of enhancers into SNPs that have GC ancestral alleles and SNPs that have AT ancestral alleles. Using each of these disjoint variants sets, we then computed singleton enrichment in enhancers versus adjacent control regions. GC-biased gene conversion is expected to have opposite effects on the two frequency spectra, increasing the proportion of GC-ancestral singletons and decreasing the proportion of AT-ancestral singletons. Despite this confounder, the finding that brain enhancers are enriched for singletons holds up when we restrict to either GC-ancestral SNPs or ATancestral SNPs. b, Across tissues, enhancers are enriched for GC base pairs compared to adjacent genomic regions. However, there is no correlation between GC content enrichment and the singleton enrichment that we attribute to purifying selection.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Joint distribution across tissues of enhancer singleton enrichment and introgression depletion.

Although singleton enrichment is correlated with depletion of young Neandertal alleles and young Denisovan alleles, the significance of this correlation disappears when all brain related tissues are excluded from the regression.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Mean enhancer phastCons scores partitioned by tissue activity.

Across all tissues, enhancers have a mean phastCons score that is slightly elevated above the genomic mean, indicating that these regions are slightly conserved over phylogenetic timescales. Fetal brain and neurosphere enhancers have a higher mean phastCons score than enhancers active in any other tissues. This result mirrors our findings on the landscape of recent purifying selection as measured by site frequency skew: fetal brain enhancers are more conserved than other regulatory elements, but fetal muscle enhancers are not.

Extended Data Fig. 10 Random sampling of control SNPs to match introgressed SNPs that have been pooled across populations.

This figure illustrates how we construct the set of SNPs that are eligible to be chosen as control SNPs that match introgressed SNPs for allele frequency and B statistic after these introgressed SNPs have been pooled across all SGDP populations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Telis, N., Aguilar, R. & Harris, K. Selection against archaic hominin genetic variation in regulatory regions. Nat Ecol Evol 4, 1558–1566 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01284-0

Download citation

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing