Viking DNA helps reveal when HIV-fighting gene mutation emerged: 9,000 years ago near the Black Sea
A gene variant that helps protect people from HIV infection likely originated in people who lived during the span of time between the Stone Age and the Viking Age, a new study of thousands of genomes reveals.
"It turns out that the variant arose in one individual who lived in an area near the Black Sea between 6,700 and 9,000 years ago," Simon Rasmussen, a bioinformatics expert at the University of Copenhagen and co-senior author of the study, said in a statement. The variant must have been helpful for something else in the past, since HIV in humans is less than a century old.
In a study published May 5 in the journal Cell, Rasmussen and his colleagues detailed their search for the origin of a genetic mutation known as CCR5 delta 32. CCR5 is a protein predominantly found in immune cells that many — but not all — HIV strains use to break into those cells and trigger infection.
But in people with two copies of the CCR5 delta 32 mutation, the protein gets disabled, essentially "locking out" the HIV virus. Scientists have taken advantage of this mutation to cure a handful of people of HIV.
Related: Mysterious case of the 'Geneva patient,' the latest person in long-term remission from HIV, raises questions
Scientists have learned that this variant makes up 10% to 16% of CCR5 genes seen in European populations. However, attempts to identify its origin and trace its spread have previously come up short, since ancient genomes are often extremely fragmentary.
In the new study, the research team identified the mutation in 2,504 genomes from modern humans sampled for the 1000 Genomes Project, an international effort to catalog human genetic variation. Then, they created a model to search 934 ancient genomes from various regions of Eurasia ranging from the early Mesolithic period to the Viking Age, from roughly 8000 B.C. to A.D. 1000.
"By looking at this large dataset, we can determine where and when the mutation arose," study co-author Kirstine Ravn, a researcher at the University of Copenhagen, said in the statement.
The team's genetic detective work revealed that the person who first carried this mutation lived near the Black Sea around 7000 B.C., around the time early farmers arrived in Europe via Western Asia. The researchers also discovered that the prevalence of the mutation exploded between 8,000 and 2,000 years ago, suggesting it was extremely useful as people moved out of the Eurasian steppe.
The study's findings contradict previous assumptions that the mutation emerged more recently. For instance, this means that the increase in the frequency of the mutation did not result from medieval plagues or from Viking exploration, which may have introduced pressure for humans' immune cells to evolve.
When it's not being ransacked by HIV, the CCR5 protein helps control how immune cells respond to signals called chemokines, likely helping direct cells to sites of inflammation in the body.
RELATED STORIES
—1,500 ancient European genomes reveal previously hidden waves of migration, study finds
—Ancient hunter-gatherer DNA linked to higher BMI in modern Japanese people
—Ancient DNA and modern genomes can reveal stories of past peoples, from the Iron Age to Chernobyl, geneticist says
The researchers suggest that people who carried the special CCR5 variant had an advantage. "People with this mutation were better at surviving, likely because it dampened the immune system during a time when humans were exposed to new pathogens," study co-author Leonardo Cobuccio, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Copenhagen, said in the statement. While this sounds negative, an overly aggressive immune system can be deadly, he said — when facing new germs, you want just enough of an immune response to subdue the threat without hurting the body itself.
"As humans transitioned from hunger-gatherers to living closely together in agricultural societies," Cobuccio said, "the pressure from infectious diseases increased, and a more balanced immune system may have been advantageous." Of course, this is a hypothesis; the exact pressures that lead to the variant's increase aren't known for sure.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
How often should you change your workouts?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. If you've been doing the same workout week in week out (or even months), you might be wondering whether it's time to switch up your training. Sticking to a consistent routine can build discipline but, over time, it may also lead to plateaus, boredom, or even injury. So how often should you actually switch things up to keep seeing progress and stay motivated? We'll cut straight to the chase, there isn't a cookie-cutter answer (sadly). 'When you change your workout regime it's often a combination of structured and predictable planning, and the slightly less predictable instinctive tuning, depending on how your body is responding,' says Steve Chambers, gym manager and certified personal trainer at Ultimate Performance. Not only that, but it also comes down to you, the person – how often a beginner changes their workout split is going to be very different compared to a more experienced gym goer. Some people also fall into the trap of chopping and changing their workouts every other week, which can also be problematic. 'If you keep changing your exercise selection too often, you're not giving yourself enough time to really conquer that particular exercise and progressively overload it to achieve hypertrophy,' Steve says. Rather than randomly rehauling your training program every couple of weeks and adding in lots of new exercises, Steve says a better way to structure your workouts so that you continue to make progress is with 'periodization'. What is 'periodization'? In simple terms, periodization is organising your long-term training plan into different phases (periods) each with a specific focus, in order to help you improve steadily, avoid burnout, plateauing, and injury. 'Instead of doing the same workout over and over, periodization adjusts key variables like intensity, volume, frequency, and exercise selection in a strategic way,' explains Steve. 'In fact, scientific research shows that a periodized versus non-periodized resistance training consistently produces the greatest results, whereas blindly repeating the same exercises, with the same tempo, rest times, reps, and sets, risks overuse injuries, mental burnout, and stagnation.' Remember, periodization is the roadmap for your entire training journey. Within your periodization plan is something called a macrocycle – this is your big-picture training plan that spans several months and is focused on a major goal, like building muscle, getting lean, or running a marathon. Then, inside that macrocycle are mesocycles – shorter training phases that usually last 3 to 8 weeks. Each mesocycle focuses on a specific objective that helps move you toward your overall macrocycle goal. For example, you may begin with a hypertrophy block, then after a few weeks move into a strength block, with your final block being targeted towards fat loss. 'These mesocycles are where you change variables such as exercise selection, volume, sets, reps, intensity, rest times etc,' says Steve. How often should you change mesocycles? Beginners A mesocycle for beginners typically lasts between four to eight weeks, depending on how the body is responding. 'If you're continuing to make progress and your plan is clearly working, keep going, but if you feel you're plateauing about the four-to-eight-week mark, then it's time to make some small tweaks,' says Steve. Remember, this doesn't mean you need to completely change your entire program. You can shorten your rest periods, add in more reps and sets, or vary your exercise selection, like swapping from a flat bench press to an incline press. 'If you're a relative beginner, you only really need to make minor edits to your programme to help keep the stimuli fresh and reinforce your muscle adaptation before you hit those dreaded plateaus.' Intermediate Those with a training age of two years or more may find they need to make more minor changes every few weeks or so. 'These can be subtle changes such as grip changes (for example, reverse grip rows instead of overhand), or switching your rep ranges from 8-12 reps to 6-8 reps but with heavier weights, alongside a scheduled deload week every three to six weeks,' says Steve. This will help drive steady progress on the gym floor and give your body time to recover from the extra intensity. Advanced If you're highly experienced and training competitively, hitting the gym five to six times a week, then Steve says you'll benefit from periodization where variables such as load, volume, and exercise selection shift systematically. 'I would advise operating within 4-6 week high-intensity mesocycles, followed by a low-volume recovery week, within an overall 12–24-week macrocycle. Once a particular macrocycle has been completed, give yourself an entire week off to reboot both mentally and physically.'
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Jurassic World Rebirth review: like the Jurassic Park itself, it's a promising experiment that goes wrong
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. I've been a stalwart fan of the Jurassic World revival of the Jurassic Park franchise, even if the quality took a tumble towards the end. So when visionary director Gareth Edwards was announced to helm a continuation of the franchise, one which would double down on the horrifying concept of mutant dinos, I was fully in. Unfortunately, the resulting movie Jurassic World Rebirth doesn't live up to the hype. It's overlong, frustrating and lacking in thrills, so much so that I look back at the widely-panned Jurassic World Dominion fondly in comparison. Jurassic World Rebirth is set several years on from Dominion, and sees an expedition of mercenaries travel to a remote island to collect DNA from isolated dinos, only to have their plans scuppered when the dinosaurs start to attack them. Who would've thought that would happen? Here's how to watch the Jurassic Park movies in order At the same time we follow a family on a sailing trip who likewise are attacked by a dinosaur, and have to find refuge on this dangerous island. In its opening text crawl, the movie sweeps under the rug the Fallen Kingdom-introduced idea of dinos joining the Earth's ecosystem in a permanent and disappointingly-limiting way, keeping action limited to one island. The team consists of Scarlett Johansson, Mahershala Ali, Jonathan Bailey, Rupert Friend and some future dino fodder, while Manuel Garcia-Rulfo is the patriarch of the family. None of the characters are given much to work with, but props go to Audrina Miranda for playing perhaps the most convincing child of the Jurassic Park franchise. The plot is driven along by a series of coincidences, contrivances and bizarre logic, and you'll want to scream at the screen for how infuriatingly little sense any of it makes. The premise for the island, the reason the original base there shut down, the relationship between the stranded family members, an unending string of hair-pullingly idiotic decisions by characters; all of these make it impossible to get engaged with the movie, though serve as fodder to complain about to friends over a beer later. The more you think about it, the more you wonder: "why is there a gas station selling tourist tat on a remote island which ever only housed a scientific research base, and has no roads?" There's a lot more that's frustrating for how it's not addressed. Two of the main characters have traumas they describe during one laborious conversation scene and barely bring up again; most of the other characters have "arc"' that are either resolved the scene after they're brought up or are completely forgotten. You don't watch Jurassic movies for their characters, but at least you get a sense of who Ian Malcolm, Ellie Sattler, Alan Grant, or the World characers actually are. Clocking in at 2 hours and 14 minutes, Rebirth is the second-longest movie of the franchise, despite its simple plot. It feels long too, with a sluggish first half that spends far too much time at sea, and a stop-start pace once characters get to the island; the story rarely instills a sense of excitement or danger. A few punchier scenes, like the brief appearance of a T-Rex and an attack by the aquatic Mosasaurus, are so prevalent in the trailers that they lose their impact, too. The movie is surprisingly bloodless and kid-friendly, more so than past entries. Almost all dino kills are out of view, with the creatures dragging victims off-camera at every opportunity (maybe they're just shy eaters), and the child character befriends a baby dinosaur that proceeds to travel around in her backpack like we're watching a Disney film (admittedly this dino, Dolores, was the highlight of the movie to some people I spoke to). Fans who loved the harrowing dino disaster and brutality of past Jurassic World movies will find it toothless. This is despite Rebirth being marketed as a horror movie. The new big bad Distortus Rex is only creepy in its first scene, then disappears for the vast majority of the movie, and when it re-enters at the eleventh hour it's nonthreatening and looks daft. In fact the premise of the island being home to an ecosystem of mutant dinos only manifests in the D-Rex and one other creature, which you'd think was just a normal dino if not for a quick dialogue aside. Instead of blood, Rebirth is chock-full of "jokes", however, the vast majority land with a resounding 'thud' (more of a 'thud' than the footsteps of the lumbering behemoths, that characters inexplicably fail to hear throughout the movie). I smiled at one line near the beginning, but the further the film goes on, the more the incessant attempts at humor deflate any atmosphere the movie has created. Dino fans will appreciate the appearance of some big-name debuts to the franchise like Quetzalcoatlus and Titanosaurus, but if you don't know your Stegasaurus from your Triceratops, then all these new dinos will do is remind you of scenes from the original trilogy, which Rebirth is clearly aping. Despite not following Dominion's footsteps by bringing back the original cast, Rebirth plays on nostalgia even more than the reboot trilogy. I liked the use of Jurassic Park's color scheme, but there are too many shots lifted wholesale from the original, and the classic score is dropped in at baffling points. The original theme, evoking wonder and excitement, is used when one character is telling another of their PTSD! Universal has dubbed Jurassic World Rebirth a stand-alone movie, rather than the start of a new trilogy, but it's hard to see where the franchise can go from here given the status of dinos within the movie. Out of the movie, Rebirth has squandered my enthusiasm for future installments, and it feels like a hiatus is well due (reports suggest a new movie will come in 2028, but one can dream!). Watch Jurassic World Rebirth exclusively in movie theaters; it releases on Wednesday, July 2. Solve the daily Crossword
Los Angeles Times
8 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Rep. Garcia of Long Beach asks RFK Jr. to explain targeting of HIV/AIDS funding for cuts
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) is calling on Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to explain why the Trump administration has repeatedly ordered cuts to HIV/AIDS programs both at home and abroad. In a letter to Kennedy dated Thursday, Garcia asserted that the cabinet secretary has a history of peddling misinformation about the virus and disease, and that the planned cuts — which he called 'alarming and unprecedented' — would cost lives. 'We are concerned that your motivations for disrupting HIV funding and delaying preventative services and research are grounded not in sound science, but in misinformation and disinformation you have spread previously about HIV and AIDS, including your repeated claim that HIV does not cause AIDS,' wrote Garcia, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee. Health and Human Services officials didn't immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday morning. Kennedy couldn't immediately be reached. Both President Trump and Kennedy have previously defended the sweeping cuts to HHS programs and staff under Kennedy's leadership. Agency spokespeople have said they would allow for a greater focus on Kennedy's priorities of 'ending America's epidemic of chronic illness by focusing on safe, wholesome food, clean water, and the elimination of environmental toxins.' Kennedy has said HHS under his watch 'will do more — a lot more — at a lower cost to the taxpayer.' Garcia's letter — which he co-wrote with Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), the ranking Democrat on the Health Care and Financial Services subcommittee — requested that HHS produce a list of all HIV/AIDS-related funding it has cut and an explanation for how those funds were identified for elimination, as well as other documentation and communications around several of the largest cuts. The letter is the latest attempt by Democrats, in coordination with health experts and LGBTQ+ organizations, to challenge what they see as an inexplicable yet coordinated effort by the Trump administration to dismantle public health initiatives aimed at controlling and ultimately ending one of the most devastating and deadly epidemics in human history. It comes the same day that Senate Republicans agreed to a Trump administration request to claw back billions of dollars in funding for public media and foreign aid, but declined an earlier White House request to include in those cuts about $400 million in HIV/AIDS funding for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, which is credited with saving millions of lives in some of the poorest nations around the world. The House had previously voted for an earlier version of the measure that did cut the funding for PEPFAR, which was started by President George W. Bush in 2003. However, Senators pushed for the restoration of the funding before agreeing to sign the broader rescission package. The House must now approve the Senate version of the measure by Friday for it to take effect. In an interview with The Times, Garcia said he has long viewed Kennedy as a dangerous 'conspiracy theorist' who has 'peddled in all sorts of lies' about HIV, vaccines and other medical science. Now that Kennedy is HHS secretary, he said, the American people deserve to know whether national and international health decisions are being driven by his baseless personal beliefs. 'Folks need to understand what he's trying to do, and I think that he has to be responsible and be held accountable for his actions,' Garcia said. In their letter, Garcia and Krishnamoorthi noted that recent scientific advancements — including the creation of new preventative drugs — are making the eradication of HIV more attainable than ever. And yet Kennedy and the Trump administration are pushing the nation and the world in the opposite direction, they said. 'Since taking office, the Trump Administration has systematically attacked HIV-related funding and blocked critical HIV-related services and care for those who need it most,' Garcia and Krishnamoorthi wrote. 'These disruptions would threaten Americans most at risk of contracting HIV, and many people living with HIV will get sicker or infect others without programs they rely on for treatment.' The letter outlines a number of examples of such cuts, including: Many in the medical and foreign aid community expressed grave concerns about Kennedy being appointed as HHS secretary, in part because of his past remarks about HIV/AIDS. Kennedy told a reporter for New York Magazine as recently as June 2023 that there 'are much better candidates than H.I.V. for what causes AIDS.' In their letter, Garcia and Krishnamoorthi called out a specific theory shared by Kennedy that the recreational drug known as 'poppers' may cause AIDS, rather than the HIV virus, writing, 'We are deeply concerned that the Trump Administration's HIV-related funding cuts are indiscriminate, rooted in a political agenda, and not at all in the interest of public health.' Kennedy's skepticism about the link between HIV and AIDS conflicts with well established science that has long been accepted by the medical establishment, and by the federal government. Studies around the world have proven the link, and found that HIV is the only common factor in AIDS cases. In August 2023, about a week before Kennedy threw his support behind Trump, his presidential campaign addressed the controversy surrounding his 'poppers' comment, stating that Kennedy did not believe poppers were 'the sole cause' of AIDS, but contended they were 'a significant factor in the disease progression' of early patients in the 1980s. Garcia and Krishnamoorthi also noted a successful effort by local officials and advocates in Los Angeles County to get about $20 million in HIV/AIDS funding restored last month, after it and similar funding nationwide was frozen by the Trump administration. The restoration of those funds followed another letter sent to Kennedy by Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) and other House members, who cited estimates from the Foundation for AIDS Research, known as amfAR, that the nationwide cuts could lead to 127,000 additional deaths from AIDS-related causes within five years. Garcia and Krishnamoorthi cited the same statistics in their letter. In his interview with The Times, Garcia, who is gay, also said the LGBTQ+ community 'is rightly outraged' at Kennedy's actions to date and deserves to know if Kennedy 'is using his own conspiracy theories and his own warped view of what the facts are' to dismantle public health infrastructure around HIV and AIDS that they fought for decades to build.
