What are the chances we start seeing researchers applying the new breakthroughs in proteomic technology to these very old fossil specimens? If not quite nuclear DNA, could we use this sort of protein data to really start discerning phylogenetic relationships between ancient hominins - Erectus, Habilis, Rudolfensis, Heidelbergensis, etc? Does proteomics have that sort of discriminatory power to demarcate different sub-species?
It would be amazing if we had some other method to firmly tease out the phylogeny of all these super ancient hominin remains, instead of having to rely only on physical anthropology and archaeology.
Protein data from some African sites from this time period are probably already within reach. I was extremely impressed earlier this year by the work from Turkana Basin sites going back into the Miocene with some protein preservation from various kinds of animals—one of the oldest was a rhinoceros relative. This is a proof of principle that many hominin sites from these kinds of sedimentary contexts will be possible. However developing the technology to the point where as little fossil material as possible is destroyed in the process will be very important to broadening the application to hominins.
Is proteomics in general able to have the same sort of resolution as nuclear DNA analysis - can it be used to discern a Han Chinese from a Yoruba Nigerian (or between Han and Japanese and Yoruba and Mandenka)? Or is that too granular/fine scale an analysis for it to handle, does it only work on higher-level phylogenetic ordering?
The scale of protein data depend on what tissue is preserved: Bone and dentine have a larger proteome than enamel. For the older preservation, right now enamel is mostly what is working, and the enamel proteome has very few protein components, only around 300 amino acids in total across all of them. There are one or two differences between Neanderthal, Denisovan, and modern populations at that scale. Paranthropus robustus has two or three more.
This is very coarse information compared to DNA. The kind of demographic and functional information we can get from DNA will not be possible from enamel protein. If we find that the phylogenetic information from enamel proteins conflicts with morphology in some way, we'll have a tough time deciding what kind of evidence to believe.
But for the purposes you suggest, identification of individual teeth or fragments, protein data is likely to be helpful.
What are the chances we start seeing researchers applying the new breakthroughs in proteomic technology to these very old fossil specimens? If not quite nuclear DNA, could we use this sort of protein data to really start discerning phylogenetic relationships between ancient hominins - Erectus, Habilis, Rudolfensis, Heidelbergensis, etc? Does proteomics have that sort of discriminatory power to demarcate different sub-species?
It would be amazing if we had some other method to firmly tease out the phylogeny of all these super ancient hominin remains, instead of having to rely only on physical anthropology and archaeology.
Protein data from some African sites from this time period are probably already within reach. I was extremely impressed earlier this year by the work from Turkana Basin sites going back into the Miocene with some protein preservation from various kinds of animals—one of the oldest was a rhinoceros relative. This is a proof of principle that many hominin sites from these kinds of sedimentary contexts will be possible. However developing the technology to the point where as little fossil material as possible is destroyed in the process will be very important to broadening the application to hominins.
Is proteomics in general able to have the same sort of resolution as nuclear DNA analysis - can it be used to discern a Han Chinese from a Yoruba Nigerian (or between Han and Japanese and Yoruba and Mandenka)? Or is that too granular/fine scale an analysis for it to handle, does it only work on higher-level phylogenetic ordering?
The scale of protein data depend on what tissue is preserved: Bone and dentine have a larger proteome than enamel. For the older preservation, right now enamel is mostly what is working, and the enamel proteome has very few protein components, only around 300 amino acids in total across all of them. There are one or two differences between Neanderthal, Denisovan, and modern populations at that scale. Paranthropus robustus has two or three more.
This is very coarse information compared to DNA. The kind of demographic and functional information we can get from DNA will not be possible from enamel protein. If we find that the phylogenetic information from enamel proteins conflicts with morphology in some way, we'll have a tough time deciding what kind of evidence to believe.
But for the purposes you suggest, identification of individual teeth or fragments, protein data is likely to be helpful.