February 26, 2026
2 min read
Add Us On GoogleAdd SciAm
Sex between Neandertals and anatomically modern humans tended to follow a specific pattern
Interbreeding between Neandertals and ancient anatomically modern humans primarily occurred between male Neandertals and female humans, a new study suggests
A Neandertal man at a human evolution exhibit at the Natural History Museum in London.
Mike Kemp/In Pictures via Getty Images
Most people today have a little Neandertal DNA sprinkled through their genome. These genomic signals are the telltale signs that overlapping populations of ancient anatomically modern humans and Neandertals had sex. Exactly what these interactions looked like is a mystery, but a new study suggests that when our species and Neandertals did interbreed, it was primarily between male Neandertals and anatomically modern female humans.
There’s less Neandertal DNA on humans’ X chromosome than there is on most other chromosomes today. There were other theories as to why that might be, including the possibility that there was some evolutionary disadvantage to the Neandertal X chromosome in humans.
“Our study allowed us to distinguish between these possibilities,” says Sarah Tishkoff, a professor of genetics and biology at the University of Pennsylvania and a co-author on the study.
On supporting science journalism
If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
The researchers compared ancient Neandertal DNA with that of people living in Africa today who have little or no Neandertal ancestry.
If mixing anatomically modern human and Neandertal DNA was disadvantageous, the scientists theorized, Neandertal genomes would show large gaps devoid of human DNA similar to the lack of Neandertal DNA on the X chromosomes of today’s H. sapiens, explains Alexander Platt, a senior research scientist at University of Pennsylvania and the study’s lead author. “But that wasn’t what we found,” he says.
Instead there was much more anatomically modern human ancestry present on Neandertal X chromosomes than the researchers had expected, including on regions that had nothing to do with fitness. This suggested that the conspicuous absence of Neandertal DNA in parts of the genomes of humans today is likely a result of a strong sex bias in mating long ago.
The research was published on Thursday in the journal Science.
Scientists already had an inkling that this might be the case, Tishkoff explains. But it’s unclear why male Neandertals might selectively mate with anatomically modern female humans, or vice versa. “One can only speculate!” Tishkoff says.
A major limitation of the study is that the team didn’t have a ton of Neandertal DNA to work with—there is only a handful of high-quality Neandertal genomes. And these genomes provide just a snapshot of what sex between Neandertals and anatomically modern humans may have looked like at a point in time.
As anthropologists work to uncover more Neandertal DNA in the fossil record, the anatomically modern human–Neandertal genetic picture will get clearer, Platt says.
In more of a philosophical sense, the study shows the value of looking outside of human DNA to understand our own ancestry, Platt says.
“We don’t just have to look in our own gene pool to find what happens to Neandertal alleles when they came into our population,” he says. By looking at the other half of these interactions, at Neandertals, “you get a much richer picture.”
It’s Time to Stand Up for Science
If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.
I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.
If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can’t-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world’s best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.
