There are Neanderthal bones. Denisovan remains. Fossils from ancient relatives of our species. Each specimen gives us another piece of the story of how Homo sapiens came to be.

But now imagine that one of the most important characters in that story has left behind no fossil, no skull, no bone, and no genome.

Nothing that a paleontologist could put behind glass.

And yet, somehow, that ancient population is still speaking.

It is speaking through us.

A fascinating new study published in Science (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aef8874?) introduces a computational method called TRACE, which allows scientists to search modern human genomes for genetic traces of ancient populations that have never been directly identified.

For years, scientists have known that our ancestors interacted with Neanderthals and Denisovans. Their DNA still survives in modern human populations. But these may not have been the only ancient humans who crossed paths with our ancestors.

Using TRACE, researchers found evidence of an unknown archaic population that contributed DNA to the ancestors of modern humans before humans spread beyond Africa.

Even more surprisingly, they found evidence of a much older lineage—possibly around 1.8 million years old—whose genetic legacy may have reached some modern humans indirectly through Denisovans.

The extraordinary part is that researchers did not need DNA from these mysterious populations to detect them. Instead, they studied the ancestry of modern genomes and looked for genetic patterns that revealed unusually ancient branches of our family history.

It is almost like finding the footprints of someone who disappeared thousands of years ago—without ever finding the person themselves.

These discoveries suggest that human evolution was far more complicated than a simple family tree. Ancient human populations repeatedly separated, migrated, met and exchanged genes. Some eventually disappeared, but pieces of their genetic legacy survived.

And that means our DNA is more than a biological instruction manual.

It is also an archive of human history.

Some of the people recorded in that archive may never have a name or a fossil. But thanks to methods like TRACE, their genetic echoes are finally becoming visible.

The next big discovery about our ancient past may not come from a fossil in the ground.

It may already be inside us.

Reference: Zhang et al., “Recovering signatures of archaic hominin introgression using ancestral recombination graphs,” Science (2026), DOI: 10.1126/science.aef8874. Detail paper @ https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aef8874?

The TRACE repository (https://github.com/YulinZhang9806/trace) contains the Python package and command-line tools used to infer archaic admixture tracts from ancestral recombination graphs.

3D-Dock Suite

Global rigid search: FFTShape complementarity and electrostatics

Re-scoring and clustering. Refinement of interface side-chains

3D-Garden

Global rigid search in ensamble

Shape complementarity and Lennard–Jones potential

Side chain and backbone dihedral refinement

DOT

Global rigid search: FFTShape complementarity, electrostatics and VDWNone

Escher NG

Global rigid searchShape complementarity, hydrogen bonds and electrostatic

Integrated in VEGA

GRAMM 

Global rigid search: FFT. smooth protein surface representation for soft docking

Shape complementarity and Lennard-Jones potential

Clustering of conformations

GRAMM-X 

Global rigid search: FFT. smooth protein surface representation for soft docking

Shape complementarity and Lennard-Jones potentialminimization and re-scoring with multiple filters

HEX

Global rigid search: Fourier correlation of spherical harmonics

Shape complementarity

HADDOCK

Global rigid searchElectrostatic ,VDW and desolvation energy termsMD simulated annealing refinement . Filtering based on external data. 

ICM

Global rigid search: Monte CarloEmpirical scoring function

Clustering and selection of conformations. Refinement of interface side-chains and re-scoring

MolFit 

Global rigid search: FFTShape complementarity

Clustering of good solutions, filtering using a priori information and small, local rigid rotations around selected conformations

PatchDock

Global rigid searchShape complementarity and atomic desolvation energy

Clustering of conformations

PyDock

Global rigid search:FFTShape complementarity

rescoring by binding electrostatics and desolvation energy

RosettaDock

Local rigid search: Monte Carlo with low and high resolution structure representation levels

Different scoring parameters for the different resolutions 

ZDOCK

Global rigid search: FFTShape complementarity, desolvation energy, and electrostatics.

Energy minimization and re-scoringFree for academics

Point to note:

The proper treatment of flexibility in protein–protein docking is still an active field of research. You first should analyzed your proteins in order to define their conformational space and then choose the most suitable method for your docking problem.

https://function.princeton.edu/

Address of the bookmark: http://www.genengnews.com/keywordsandtools/print/3/32115/

Translational recoding.

RNA editing.

Evolution of the genetic code and translation.

More at http://lapti.ucc.ie/research.html

Lab page http://lapti.ucc.ie/index.html

We work in a highly interdisciplinary environment at the interface of Computer Science and Biology. Since its inception, our lab has eagerly engaged in collaborative research partnerships with biological and experimental collaborators, facilitated by our affiliation with the Broad Institute and the Computational and Systems Biology initiative (CSBi) at MIT, our participation in the Epigenome Roadmap, ENCODE, and modENCODE consortia, and by several other ongoing collaborations at MIT, Harvard, and the Harvard Medical School affiliated hospitals.

http://compbio.mit.edu/

Address of the bookmark: http://seq.crg.es/download/software/Miro/

http://lin-group.cn/server/iRNAD/

Address of the bookmark: http://lin-group.cn/server/iRNAD/

Availability and implementation: The software runs under Linux, has the GPLv3 licence and is freely available from http://sanger-pathogens.github.io/iva

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25725497/

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/sanger-pathogens/iva

Why Normalize RNA-Seq Data?

Normalization is a crucial step in RNA-Seq analysis for the following reasons:

• Sequencing depth: Different RNA-Seq experiments produce varying numbers of reads, making direct comparisons between samples misleading.

• Gene length: Longer genes inherently generate more reads, irrespective of their actual expression level.

• Bias reduction: Normalization mitigates technical biases, enabling meaningful biological interpretation.

TPM (Transcripts Per Million)

TPM measures the proportion of reads mapped to a transcript, normalized by transcript length and sequencing depth. It is calculated as:

Key Features:

1. Proportionality: TPM values sum to 1,000,000 across all transcripts in a sample, making it easier to compare between samples.

2. Intuitive interpretation: TPM values directly represent the abundance of transcripts in a sample.

3. Preferred for comparisons: TPM facilitates between-sample comparisons better than FPKM.

FPKM (Fragments Per Kilobase Million)

FPKM normalizes read counts by transcript length and sequencing depth, but without enforcing proportionality like TPM. It is defined as:

Key Features:

1. Historical significance: FPKM was one of the first normalization methods used for RNA-Seq.

2. Single-end vs. paired-end: In paired-end sequencing, FPKM becomes RPKM (Reads Per Kilobase Million).

3. Limited utility: FPKM values are not as robust as TPM for cross-sample comparisons due to lack of proportionality.

CPM (Counts Per Million)

CPM normalizes raw read counts by sequencing depth, without considering gene length. It is expressed as:

Key Features:

1. Simplicity: CPM is straightforward and computationally less intensive.

2. Application: Suitable for non-length-dependent analyses, such as comparing total expression levels or differential expression analysis.

3. Gene length agnostic: CPM does not correct for gene length, making it less ideal for measuring expression levels.

When to Use Each Method

• TPM: Best for comparing expression levels between samples, especially when transcript length and sequencing depth vary.

• FPKM: Useful for historical consistency but generally replaced by TPM.

• CPM: Ideal for differential expression analysis when gene length normalization is unnecessary.

Conclusion

Choosing the right normalization method depends on the specific objectives of your RNA-Seq analysis. TPM’s proportionality and robustness make it the preferred choice for most applications, while CPM serves well for differential expression studies. Although FPKM paved the way for RNA-Seq normalization, it has largely been supplanted by TPM in modern workflows. Understanding these methods and their nuances ensures accurate and meaningful interpretations of RNA-Seq data.

References:

1. Li, B., & Dewey, C. N. (2011). RSEM: accurate transcript quantification from RNA-Seq data with or without a reference genome. BMC Bioinformatics.

2. Trapnell, C., et al. (2010). Transcript assembly and quantification by RNA-Seq reveals unannotated transcripts and isoform switching during cell differentiation. Nature Biotechnology.

3. Law, C. W., et al. (2014). voom: precision weights unlock linear model analysis tools for RNA-seq read counts. Genome Biology.