The skull of the 75,000 year old Neanderthal from the Shanidar cave in Iraq.
Posted on 03/15/2005 7:20:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
An international team, led by researchers at the Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, in Leipzig, Germany, have extracted and sequenced protein from a Neanderthal from Shanidar Cave, Iraq dating to approximately 75,000 years old. It is rare to recover protein of this age, and remarkable to be able to determine the constituent amino acid sequence. This is the oldest fossil protein ever sequenced. Protein sequences may be used in a similar way to DNA, to provide information on the genetic relationships between extinct and living species. As ancient DNA rarely survives, this new method opens up the possibility of determining these relationships in much older fossils which no longer contain DNA (PNAS Online Early Edition, March 8, 2005).
The research, published in PNAS, presents the sequence for the bone protein osteocalcin from a Neanderthal from Shanidar Cave, Iraq, as well as osteocalcin sequences from living primates (humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). The team found that the Neanderthal sequence was the same as modern humans. In addition, the team found a marked difference in the sequences of Neanderthals, human, chimpanzee and orangutan from that of gorillas, and most other mammals. This sequence difference is at position nine, where the crystalline amino acid hydroxyproline is replaced by proline (an amino acid that is found in many proteins). The authors suggest that this is a dietary response, as the formation of hydroxyproline requires vitamin C, which is ample in the diets of herbivores like gorillas, but may be absent from the diets of the omnivorous primates such as humans and Neanderthals, orangutans and chimpanzees. Therefore, the ability to form proteins without the presence of vitamin C may have been an advantage to these primates if this nutrient was missing from the diets regularly, or from time to time.
The skull of the 75,000 year old Neanderthal from the Shanidar cave in Iraq.
This research opens up the exciting possibility of extracting and sequencing protein from other fossils, including earlier humans, as a means of determining the relationships between extinct and living species, and to better understand the phylogenetic relationships.
bttt for later read. :-)
|
Interesting.
 |
So, let me see if I understand the thrust here: Germany will now clone a vast army of prehistoric Muslims to conquer the world? |
"If" true, then once again we see "devolution" in progress. An ancient ability was to form proteins was loss.
And once again, this is going in the OPPOSITE direction of evolution.
Here is the interesting PNAS article
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0500450102v1
We report here protein sequences of fossil hominids, from two Neanderthals dating to 75,000 years old from Shanidar Cave in Iraq. These sequences, the oldest reported fossil primate protein sequences, are of bone osteocalcin, which was extracted and sequenced by using MALDI-TOF/TOF mass spectrometry. Through a combination of direct sequencing and peptide mass mapping, we determined that Neanderthals have an osteocalcin amino acid sequence that is identical to that of modern humans.
We also report complete osteocalcin sequences for chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and a partial sequence for orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus), all of which are previously unreported. We found that the osteocalcin sequences of Neanderthals, modern human, chimpanzee, and orangutan are unusual among mammals in that the ninth amino acid is proline (Pro-9), whereas most species have hydroxyproline (Hyp-9). Posttranslational hydroxylation of Pro-9 in osteocalcin by prolyl-4-hydroxylase requires adequate concentrations of vitamin C (L-ascorbic acid), molecular O2, Fe2+, and 2-oxoglutarate, and also depends on enzyme recognition of the target proline substrate consensus sequence Leu-Gly-Ala-Pro-9-Ala-Pro-Tyr occurring in most mammals. In five species with Pro-9-Val-10, hydroxylation is blocked, whereas in gorilla there is a mixture of Pro-9 and Hyp-9. We suggest that the absence of hydroxylation of Pro-9 in Pan, Pongo, and Homo may reflect response to a selective pressure related to a decline in vitamin C in the diet during omnivorous dietary adaptation, either independently or through the common ancestor of these species.
Thanks for the ping!
Uh... HELLO! This was a process needed when vitamin C wasn't available. Vitamin C is now largely available. Thus, it's an unecessary process.
Evolution wins another one. And ID takes it in the shorts *again*.
Strangely enough, Chicago voting records indicate that the 75,000 year old Neanderthal voted for Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000...
Info on Osteocalcin http://www.hprd.org/protein/00205
but they have not deposited the sequences http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi of the other species yet
> Interestingly, the general concensus (prior to Darwin's theory) as to the age of the earth was around 6,000 years ...
Not in the scientific community. Well before Darwin, geologists were beginning to recognize that the Earth was a *lot* older than they had been told. See: "The Map That Changed The World" for a nicely readable history of William Smith's 1815 geological map of Britain, where geologist/surveyor Smith began to piece together the geological history of Britain. Extreme age was apparent even then. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that the Earth is a hell of a lot older than 6,000 years, doesn't even take an evolutionist... just takes someone with an observant and reasonably intelligent mind.
Beep! Circle takes the square. By the end of the 18th century (note, that is about 50 years before the ToE), geologists knew the world was at least several hundred million years old. The whole "6,000 year old Earth" thingy can be traced to Bishop James Ussher and his 1650 chronology (Wikipedia, 2005). Of course, we have records from civilizations extending further back than October 23, 4004 B.C., rendering even conjecture on this point moot.
There is no "opposite". Evolution is evolution. Evolution is not some linear direction.
...i.e., anyone not a creationist.
"Uh... HELLO! This was a process needed when vitamin C wasn't available. Vitamin C is now largely available. Thus, it's an unecessary process."
So you are saying that vitamin C did not exist at that time? And if you are saying this, how do you know it did not exist? Just curious.
Prior to Darwin, the consensus among scientists was that the age earth was in the 10's of million of years. Geologists were working with these time frames before Darwin was born.
"If" true, then once again we see "devolution" in progress. An ancient ability was to form proteins was loss. And once again, this is going in the OPPOSITE direction of evolution.
Danny, many times in the past I have suggested that you really should try to learn something about biology before you attempt to pontificate upon it, and I must unfortunately do so again now.
Your lack of education on this subject -- and your creationist bias -- has yet again led you astray and caused you to misunderstand what you're reading. The article does not say that "An ancient ability was to form proteins was loss [sic]." On the contrary, it says that the human/chimp/orangutan clade EVOLVED a new and better form of the pre-existing protein, by gaining the ability to form it more efficiently in the face of shortages of Vitamin C -- a shortage faced by all primates.
Why don't you go learn something about the subject before you try to critique it? Your current lack of understanding causes you to keep getting stuff consistently wrong.
Love it......Ha...........Ha..........
> So you are saying that vitamin C did not exist at that time?
Incorrect. However, the Neanderthal was a species evolved for the cold. That's clear based on their structure, particularly their nasal passages and sinus cavity. How many oranges do you find growing in the tundra?
Ussher was not the first to try to calculate the length of time from the creation...in the Middle Ages the Byzantines had a reckoning from the creation, and the Jewish calendar puts the creation in 3761 BC (the current year is 5765). There are discrepancies between different manuscripts for the ages of some of the patriarchs in Genesis, and there is disagreement over the length of the period of the Judges.
This is just willful blindness. It's no loss to lose the need for something upon which you cannot rely. The loss of a vulnerability to malnutrition is a gain. At any rate, there's a gain of an ability to form a new protein. The net ability to synthesize proteins is unchanged.
Yes. So?
So what else wouldn't we (the ignorant masses of unwashed humanity) have already guessed???
The list is endless.
Interestingly, the general concensus (prior to Darwin's theory) as to the age of the earth was around 6,000 years based primarily on average population growth of societies and the number of generation from Adam.
Others have already beaten me to the punch when it comes to pointing out what a false and ignorant statement this is. Even during the 1700's (*well* "prior to Darwin") the Earth was recognized (due to multiple indepedent lines of evidence) as being at least millions of years old.
Not exactly brain surgery or quantum physics, but what would a bunch of ignorant 1800's/1900's unwashed bible reading bumkins know anyway.....
Apparently they knew more than some modern people -- such as yourself for example.
It certainly looks like willful blindness to me. The loss of an INvulnerability to malnutrition is a loss. Neanderthal had an INvulnerability, that we don't, so we apparently lost it.
"If" true, then once again we see "devolution" in progress. An ancient ability was to form proteins was loss.
And once again, this is going in the OPPOSITE direction of evolution.
Danny, you are so full of it. No ability to form proteins was lost, the ability to form a protein in an environment short of vitamin C was gained.
Just WOW! Thanks for this article. This opens up whole new ways to map our ancestory and migrations. I'm just flumoxed.
No. Read it again. The neanderthal protein is the same as ours. Fruit-eating primates whose vitamin C supply is assured by their diet have a different protein.
...and all such attempts to derive the age of the Earth from Genesis give a number that is incorrect by a factor of roughly a million.
You'd think that folks would have learned something from the Galileo fiasco, but apparently not.
It certainly looks like willful blindness to me.
Thanks for the honest confession.
The loss of an INvulnerability to malnutrition is a loss. Neanderthal had an INvulnerability, that we don't, so we apparently lost it.
You're completely confused. The article said no such thing.
It does not say that "Neanderthal had an INvulnerability".
It does not say that Neanderthals had anything we don't -- in fact it specifically says that Neanderthals had the *same* protein we do.
It doesn't say that we "lost" anything. It says that we (and Neanderthals, as well as chimps and orangutans) gained the ability to form the protein by using an alternate amino acid which does not require the presence of Vitamin C. This is an *advantage* (not a loss) because shortages of Vitamin C are often a dietary problem for primates in general, and evolving an independence from Vitamin C requirements is an evolutionary *advantage*.
Again, please attempt to learn something about science before you attempt to pontificate upon it.
All right, I misread it.
I thought this was related to the much touted lack of human's and guinea pig's ability to sythesize vitamin C. And therefore I assumed that Neanderthal had it and the rest of us didn't.
So if it's something Human's had all along, and we don't have any proof that human's ever lacked it. They why are we assuming that Human's EVOLVED it?
PETA's gonna be pissed. Our closest relatives and we are all chemically constructed for an omnivorous (including tasty critters) diet.
Very, very few people still believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old. The vast majority of Christian denominations have rejected this view because there is no rational or logical way to ignore the mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary. These denominations have conlcuded that their interpretation of the Bible was incorrect.
The response to your statement is that nobody really cares that a small percentage of irrational people believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
Did that neanderthal have a press card?
> NO ONE PRESENTLY "REALLY" CARES WHAT A NARROW, ATHEISTIC SLICE OF THE OVERALL POPULATION then or now THINKS OR CARES ABOUT
Wow. Do you *honestly* believe that geologists have, since the early 1700's, been pretty uniformly atheist?
Even so: you'd be wrong that nobody cares. The petrochemical industry, and everybody who relies upon products of the petrochemical industry (that would be you, son), cares very much that the geologists get it right. And part of getting it right is understanding that the world is far older than 6000 years. The lines of evidence that show the Earths incredible age also shopw where the oil and coal are.
Again, read the book I mentioned. Back in 1815 Bill Smith was showing how to use such knowledge to find coal and dig canals.
Well at least you are no longer running the wrong way, but you're 99 yards from the goal.
It is related to that. For primates not having that ability, the new protein is better.
And therefore I assumed that Neanderthal had it and the rest of us didn't.
Neanderthal was probably in the same boat, no ability to synthesize vitamin C. You certainly had your blinders in place when reading that article.
So if it's something Human's had all along, and we don't have any proof that human's ever lacked it. They why are we assuming that Human's EVOLVED it?
Hmmm? Humans still have the pseudogene remnant of their former ability to synthesize vitamin C. Hello?
The scenario runs something like this. Non-primate mammals (with some exception, like said guinea pig) had the ability to synthesize ascorbic acid, an important intermediate compound for connective tissue growth and repair. The mammalian radiation created a group of tree-dwelling, fruit-eating mammals called primates. Fruit has lots of vitamin C in it. If your population lives by eating fruit all day, you could lose the ability of synthesize vitamin C and never notice for generations and generations. That happened.
Some primate groups eventually stopped eating so much fruit. They noticed a susceptibility to a new form of malnutrition. We call it "scurvy."
Cutting vitamin C out of the loop to form osteocalcin was an advantage for the new omnivorous primates. They seemed to have hit this mutation early. At any rate, humans, orangs, neanderthals, and chimps all have the new osteocalcin.
I don't see how you can say there's no evidence. We have lots of molecular studies now. This is just another one on a large and growing pile.
You're trying to make a science out of being dumb as a post, Danny. That doesn't go anywhere good.
Speaking of objects in the sky, the planet Mercury is visible in the evening twilight, due west, for the next few days...the only bright object near the horizon. Easily found with binoculars, but visible to the naked eye.
The only molecular studies prior to this one used mtDNA. mtDNA has a few limitations from the way it goes down from mother to child with no sexual recombination. You can't use mtDNA to show that you're related to your daddy, for instance.
Neanderthal was a beast related to no other creature on earth.
No molecular study shows anything of the sort. The mtDNA studies do tend to show that neanderthals were not our direct ancestors but more of an "uncle" group. However, even that is not clear due to the matrilineal limitation.
Some say we have 98% of the genes of a chimpanzee bur they have not sequenced a chimp so that is a guess. I like the one that we have 70% of the DNA of a carrot!
We are more related to chimps than chimps are to orangutans or gorillas. That's not a guess.
James Hutton claimed millions and millions of years were needed to explain the measured results of erosion.
James Hutton claimed millions and millions of years were needed to explain the measured results of erosion.
Do you always respond to a refutation of your erroneous claim by a degeneration into mindless shouting of an irrelevant topic?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.