Archaic introgression contributed to shape the adaptive modulation of angiogenesis and nitric oxide induction in human high-altitude populations from the Himalayas

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Over the last decade, numerous studies have identified adaptation signals in modern humans driven by genomic variants introgressed from archaic hominins such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. One of the most classic signals comes from a beneficial haplotype in the EPAS1 gene in Tibetans that is evidently of Denisovan origin and facilitated high altitude adaptation (HAA). Given that HAA is a complex trait with numerous underlying genetic contributions, in this paper Ferraretti et al. asked whether additional HAA-related genes may also exhibit a signature of adaptive introgression. Specifically, the authors considered that if such a signature exists, they most likely are only mild signals from polygenic selection, or soft sweeps on standing archaic variation, in contrast to a strong and nearly complete selection signal like in the EPAS1. Therefore, they leveraged two methods, including a composite likelihood method for detecting adaptive introgression and a biological network-based method for detecting polygenic selection, and identified two additional genes that harbor plausible signatures of adaptive introgression for HAA.

Strengths:
The study is well motivated by an important question, which is, whether archaic introgression can drive polygenic adaptation via multiple small effect contributions in genes underlying different biological pathways regulating a complex trait (such as HAA). This is a valid question and the influence of archaic introgression on polygenic adaptation has not been thoroughly explored by previous studies

The authors reexamined previously published high-altitude Tibetan whole genome data and applied a couple of the recently developed methods for detecting adaptive introgression and polygenic selection.

Weaknesses:
My main concern with this paper is that I am not too convinced that the reported genomic regions putatively under polygenic selection are indeed of archaic origin. Other than some straightforward population structure characterizations, the authors mainly did two analyses with regard to the identification of adaptive introgression: First, they used one composite likelihood-based method, the VolcanoFinder, to detect the plausible archaic adaptive introgression and found two candidate genes (EP300 and NOS2). Next, they attempted to validate the identified signal using another method that detects polygenic selection based on biological network enrichments for archaic variants.

In general, I don't see in the manuscript that the choice of methods here are well justified. VolcanoFinder is one among the several commonly used methods for detecting adaptive introgression (eg. the D, RD, U, and Q statistics, genomatnn, maldapt etc.). Even if the selection was mild and incomplete, some of these other methods should be able to recapitulate and validate the results, which are currently missing in this paper. Besides, some of the recent papers that studied the distribution of archaic ancestry in Tibetans don't seem to report archaic segments in the two gene regions. These all together made me not sure about the presence of archaic introgression, in contrast to just selection on ancestral variation.

Furthermore, the authors tried to validate the results by using signet, a method that detects enrichments of alleles under selection in a set of biological networks related to the trait. However, the authors did not provide sufficient description on how they defined archaic alleles when scoring the genes in the network. In fact, reading from the method description, they seemed to only have considered alleles shared between Tibetans and Denisovans, but not necessarily exclusively shared between them. If the alleles used for scoring the networks in Signet are also found in other populations such as Han Chinese or Africans, then that would make a substantial difference in the result, leading to potential false positives.

Overall, given the evidence provided by this article, I am not sure they are adequate to suggest archaic adaptive introgression. I recommend additional analyses for the authors to consider for rigorously testing their hypothesis. Please see the details in my review to the authors.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
In Ferrareti et al. they identify adaptively introgressed genes using VolcanoFinder and then identify pathways enriched for adaptively introgressed genes. They also use a signet to identify pathways that are enriched for Denisovan alleles. The authors find that angiogenesis and nitric oxide induction are enriched for archaic introgression.

Strengths:
Most papers that have studied the genetic basis of high altitude (HA) adaptation in Tibet have highly emphasized the role of a few genes (e.g. EPAS1, EGLN1), and in this paper, the authors look for more subtle signals in other genes (e.g EP300, NOS 2) to investigate how archaic introgression may be enriched at the pathway level.

Looking into the biological functions enriched for Denisovan introgression in Tibetans is important for characterizing the impact of Denisovan introgression.

Weaknesses:
The manuscript lacks details or justification about how/why some of the analyses were performed. Below are some examples where the authors could provide additional details.

The authors made specific choices in their window analysis. These choices are not justified or there is no comment as to how results might change if these choices were perturbed. For example, in the methods, the authors write "Then, the genome was divided into 200 kb windows with an overlap of 50 kb and for each of them we calculated the ratio between the number of significant SNVs and the total number of variants."

Additional information is needed for clarity. For example, "we considered only protein-protein interactions showing confidence scores {greater than or equal to} 0.7 and the obtained protein frameworks were integrated using information available in the literature regarding the functional role of the related genes and their possible involvement in high-altitude adaptation." What do the confidence scores mean? Why 0.7?

In the method section (Identifying gene networks enriched for Denisovan-like derived alleles), the authors write "To validate VolcanoFinder results by using an independent approach". Does this mean that for signet the authors do not use the regions identified as adaptively introgressed using volcanofinder? I thought in the original signet paper, the authors used a summary describing the amount of introgression of a given region.

Later, the authors write "To do so, we first compared the Tibetan and Denisovan genomes to assess which SNVs were present in both modern and archaic sequences. These loci were further compared with the ancestral reconstructed reference human genome sequence (1000 Genomes Project Consortium et al., 2015) to discard those presenting an ancestral state (i.e., that we have in common with several primate species)." It is not clear why the authors are citing the 1000 genomes project. Are they comparing with the reference human genome reference or with all populations in the 1000 genomes project? Also, are the authors allowing derived alleles that are shared with Africans? Typically, populations from Africa are used as controls since the Denisovan introgression occurred in Eurasia.

The methods section for Figures 4B, 4C, and 4D is a little hard to understand. What is the x-axis on these plots? Is it the number of pairwise differences to Denisovan? The caption is not clear here. The authors mention that "Conversely, for non-introgressed loci (e.g., EGLN1), we might expect a remarkably different pattern of haplotypes distribution, with almost all haplotype classes presenting a larger proportion of non-Tibetan haplotypes rather than Tibetan ones." There is clearly structure in EGLN1. There is a group of non-Tibetan haplotypes that are closer to Denisovan and a group of Tibetan haplotypes that are distant from Denisovan...How do the authors interpret this?

In the original signet paper (Guoy and Excoffier 2017), they apply signet to data from Tibetans. Zhang et al. PNAS (2021) also applied it to Tibetans. It would be helpful to highlight how the approach here is different.