ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2019
Identification of African-Specific Admixture between Modern and Archaic Humans.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recovering signatures of archaic introgression using ancestral recombination graphs.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Recent advances in methods to characterize archaic introgression in modern humans.Genome research · 2026Review
- Favored Races in the Struggle for Life: Racism and the Speciation Concept.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2023Review
- Article
- Evolutionary Genetics and Admixture in African Populations.Genome biology and evolution · 2023Review
- Our Tangled Family Tree: New Genomic Methods Offer Insight into the Legacy of Archaic Admixture.Genome biology and evolution · 2021Review
- The deep population history in Africa.Human molecular genetics · 2021Review
- Origins of modern human ancestry.Nature · 2021Review
- Article
- Learning the properties of adaptive regions with functional data analysis.PLoS genetics · 2020Article
- Methods for detecting introgressed archaic sequences.Current opinion in genetics & development · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent work has demonstrated that two archaic human groups (Neanderthals and Denisovans) interbred with modern humans and contributed to the contemporary human gene pool. These findings relied on the availability of high-coverage genomes from both Neanderthals and Denisovans. Here we search for evidence of archaic admixture from a worldwide panel of 1,667 individuals using an approach that does not require the presence of an archaic human reference genome. We find no evidence for archaic admixture in the Andaman Islands, as previously claimed, or on the island of Flores, where Homo floresiensis fossils have been found. However, we do find evidence for at least one archaic admixture event in sub-Saharan Africa, with the strongest signal in Khoesan and Pygmy individuals from Southern and Central Africa. The locations of these putative archaic admixture tracts are weighted against functional regions of the genome, consistent with the long-term effects of purifying selection against introgressed genetic material.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.