Address of the bookmark: https://www.encodeproject.org/data-standards/reference-sequences/

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.

Address of the bookmark: http://www.dkfz.de/en/applied-bioinformatics/telomerehunter/telomerehunter.html

https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1186/s12864-018-5330-5?author_access_token=ICASEpyMAQaxLlKw--fyCG_BpE1tBhCbnbw3BuzI2RMA57KLmXk5bZabRUiDQzRFHXd6hjm4kWSiLV3mU5XVMitqXUwFMSo4x5vbfty0EDQ9PW1sd1h923_TYXkvJ5niSwAyZ7BklJ0ujFAFhcKtjw%3D%3D

Address of the bookmark: https://webs.iiitd.edu.in/raghava/humcfs/

Address of the bookmark: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj6987

Address of the bookmark: http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/3/3/423

SiLiX adopts a graph-theoretical framework to interpret similarity pairs as edges of a network. A very efficient algorithm, based on the Disjoint Sets Data Structure, allows the computation of sequence families with low time and space requirements.

A parallel version of SiLiX, based on MPI, is also available in this package and has been proved to be scalable, so that its allows the study of very large datasets.

SiLiX is already included in the analysis pipeline for HOGENOM.

Address of the bookmark: http://lbbe.univ-lyon1.fr/SiLiX?lang=fr

Before you go down that path, consider this critical biological question:
Are you sequencing human cells—or bacterial contamination?

The Silent Saboteur: Mycoplasma in Cell Cultures

Mycoplasma contamination remains one of the most widespread and underdiagnosed issues in tissue culture work. Studies suggest that 15–35% of cell lines in use may be contaminated, often without visible signs. Unlike other microbial infections, Mycoplasma does not produce cloudiness, odor, or a change in pH. Many researchers won’t detect it unless they specifically test for it.

The consequences, however, are profound. Mycoplasma can significantly alter:

• Host gene expression patterns

• Cell proliferation rates

• Epigenetic profiles and chromatin accessibility

• Cytokine signaling and immune responses

In short, it can skew your results, compromise your biological conclusions, and invalidate weeks or months of research.

A Simple Diagnostic Step: Map Against Mycoplasma Genomes

If you encounter poor alignment rates to the human genome, consider mapping your reads to a Mycoplasma reference genome—or better yet, use a combined human + Mycoplasma reference. There have been cases where over half of all reads, initially assumed to be from human cells, were in fact bacterial in origin. This check is fast, easy, and could save your project.

How Contamination Happens—and Persists

Mycoplasma is small (0.1–0.3 μm), lacks a cell wall, and can pass through standard filters undetected. Common sources include:

• Contaminated reagents (e.g., FBS)

• Infected cell lines obtained from other labs

• Poor aseptic technique or shared equipment

Once present, it spreads quickly between cultures and can persist for months, silently affecting results.

Why Treatment Is Difficult

While antibiotics such as Plasmocin or BM-Cyclin are sometimes used, they often offer only partial resolution and may themselves alter cell behavior. In many cases, the best course of action is to discard the contaminated culture and start with a fresh, verified stock.

Practical Recommendations for Researchers

• Routinely test for Mycoplasma using PCR, qPCR, or fluorescence-based assays

• Incorporate contamination screens into your sequencing QC pipeline

• Use combined reference genomes when mapping ambiguous reads

• Practice strict aseptic technique and monitor all incoming cell lines

• Don’t ignore unexplained data anomalies—they might point to contamination

Closing Thought: Contamination Is a Biological Variable

It’s easy to view poor mapping as a technical issue, but sometimes the problem lies deeper—in the biology itself. Mycoplasma contamination doesn’t just interfere with sequencing; it interferes with science. As a research community, we must treat contamination not as an afterthought, but as a key variable to control.

So next time your reads won’t align, don’t just tune the aligner. Ask if your cells are telling the truth—or if they're hiding something.