Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18380860›Full record

ReviewJournal of anatomy2008

Reconstructing phylogenies and phenotypes: a molecular view of human evolution.

Brenda J Bradley

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of anatomy, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Parting ways: Pan-Homo divergence revisited.Primates; journal of primatology · 2026
    Review
  2. The history of cryptosporidiosis.Parasites & vectors · 2026
    Review
  3. Homo luzonensis and the role of homoplasy in the morphology of hominin insular species.Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society · 2026
    Article
  4. New Challenges for Anatomists in the Era of Omics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  5. Data integration in Bayesian phylogenetics.Annual review of statistics and its application · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. HUMAN BRAIN EVOLUTION.Current opinion in behavioral sciences · 2017
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Retrieving chronological age from dental remains of early fossil hominins to reconstruct human growth in the past.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2010
    Review
  17. Arboreality, terrestriality and bipedalism.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2010
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Colloquium paper: reconstructing human evolution: achievements, challenges, and opportunities.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2010
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Brenda J BradleyDepartment of Zoology and Christ's College, University of Cambridge, UK. bjb37@cam.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review broadly summarizes how molecular biology has contributed to our understanding of human evolution. Molecular anthropology began in the 1960s with immunological comparisons indicating that African apes and humans were closely related and, indeed, shared a common ancestor as recently as 5 million years ago. Although initially dismissed, this finding has proven robust and numerous lines of molecular evidence now firmly place the human-ape divergence at 4-8 Ma. Resolving the trichotomy among humans, chimpanzees and gorillas took a few more decades. Despite the readily apparent physical similarities shared by African apes to the exclusion of modern humans (body hair, knuckle-walking, thin tooth enamel), the molecular support for a human-chimpanzee clade is now overwhelming. More recently, whole genome sequencing and gene mapping have shifted the focus of molecular anthropology from phylogenetic analyses to phenotypic reconstruction and functional genomics. We are starting to identify the genetic basis of the morphological, physiological and behavioural traits that distinguish modern humans from apes and apes from other primates. Most notably, recent comparative genomic analyses strongly indicate that the marked differences between modern humans and chimpanzees are likely due more to changes in gene regulation than to modifications of the genes themselves, an idea first proposed over 30 years ago. Almost weekly, press releases describe newly identified genes and regulatory elements that seem to have undergone strong positive selection along the human lineage. Loci involved in speech (e.g. FOXP2), brain development (e.g. ASPM), and skull musculature (e.g. MYH16) have been of particular interest, but some surprising candidate loci (e.g. those involved in auditory capabilities) have emerged as well. Exciting new research avenues, such as the Neanderthal Genome Project, promise that molecular analyses will continue to provide novel insights about our evolution. Ultimately, however, these molecular findings can only be understood in light of data from field sites, morphology labs, and museum collections. Indeed, molecular anthropology depends on these sources for calibrating molecular clocks and placing genetic data within the context of key morphological and ecological transitions in human evolution.

Indexed as

Anthropology, PhysicalBiological EvolutionAnimalsEvolution, MolecularGenome, HumanGenomicsHumansPhenotypePrimates

Identifiers

PMID18380860
PMCPMC2409108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.