Back

Human Autosomal Nucleotide Positions Differing from Bonobo Instead Match Pig

McCarthy, E. M.

2024-08-19 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2024.08.14.607926 bioRxiv
Show abstract

OverviewTo examine the hybrid hypothesis of human origins, a novel data mining program, BOOMSTICK, was used to scan the euchromatic portions of two target genomes, those of Homo sapiens and Pan paniscus. Each of the two genomes were broken up into 100-kB segments, each of which was searched for matches to a large set of porcine queries. All scans sought matches to the same set of 813,194 40-mer nucleotide queries randomly selected from the genome of Sus scrofa (domestic pig). For each of the two study organisms, mean segmental match rates (MSMRs) were then calculated for all segments in each of three categories: those segments occurring on autosomes, those on the X chromosome, and those on the Y chromosome. ResultsIn scans of single-copy regions (euchromatin) in both their Y chromosomes and their autosomes, it was found that the number of matches to randomly selected porcine queries was higher in humans than in bonobos. When autosomes were compared, matches were 1.3% higher in humans than in bonobos. This figure is equal to the percentage of human autosomal nucleotide positions bearing nucleotides that match in pig but not in bonobo. Remarkably, it agrees with the percentage of autosomal nucleotides previously reported to differ in bonobos and humans. So, the results of this study indicate that essentially all the nucleotide positions that differ in humans and bonobos, are the same in humans and pigs. In addition, the number of matches to pig queries found on the human Y chromosome was 34.5% higher than on the bonobo Y, and 12.4% higher than on the chimpanzee Y (the chimpanzee figure may be the more reliable of the two, since the bonobo Y nucleotide sequence file scanned contained only unlocalized scaffolds). MSMRs for the human and bonobo X chromosomes did not significantly differ.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 14%
14.1%
2
Biology Open
130 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.1%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 13%
7.1%
4
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
6.3%
5
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.3%
6
Genes
126 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
7
BMC Genomic Data
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
8
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.6%
9
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
10
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.9%
11
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.9%
12
Data in Brief
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
13
Chromosome Research
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
14
Viruses
318 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
15
Journal of Molecular Evolution
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.6%
16
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
17
BMC Ecology and Evolution
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
18
Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
19
Genome Biology and Evolution
280 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
20
Medical Research Archives
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
21
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
22
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
23
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
24
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
25
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
351 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
26
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
222 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
27
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 25%
0.7%
28
Genetics Selection Evolution
33 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
29
Open Biology
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
30
Gene
41 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%