Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23095378›Full record

ArticleThe Behavioral and brain sciences2012

Behavior genetics and postgenomics.

Evan Charney

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Behavioral and brain sciences, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 187 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. How to Diagnose Abhorrent Science.The Hastings Center report · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Somatic mosaicism in the diseased brain.Molecular cytogenetics · 2022
    Review
  6. Twin studies to GWAS: there and back again.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2021
    Review
  7. Synthetic threads through the web of life.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Eugenics Undefended.Monash bioethics review · 2019
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. A Twin Study of Objective and Subjective Pubertal Timing and Peer Influence on Risk-Taking.Journal of research on adolescence : the official journal of the Society for Research on Adolescence · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Evan CharneyDepartment of Public Policy and Political Science, Duke Institute for Brain Sciences, Duke Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC 90239, USA.
Duke University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The science of genetics is undergoing a paradigm shift. Recent discoveries, including the activity of retrotransposons, the extent of copy number variations, somatic and chromosomal mosaicism, and the nature of the epigenome as a regulator of DNA expressivity, are challenging a series of dogmas concerning the nature of the genome and the relationship between genotype and phenotype. According to three widely held dogmas, DNA is the unchanging template of heredity, is identical in all the cells and tissues of the body, and is the sole agent of inheritance. Rather than being an unchanging template, DNA appears subject to a good deal of environmentally induced change. Instead of identical DNA in all the cells of the body, somatic mosaicism appears to be the normal human condition. And DNA can no longer be considered the sole agent of inheritance. We now know that the epigenome, which regulates gene expressivity, can be inherited via the germline. These developments are particularly significant for behavior genetics for at least three reasons: First, epigenetic regulation, DNA variability, and somatic mosaicism appear to be particularly prevalent in the human brain and probably are involved in much of human behavior; second, they have important implications for the validity of heritability and gene association studies, the methodologies that largely define the discipline of behavior genetics; and third, they appear to play a critical role in development during the perinatal period and, in particular, in enabling phenotypic plasticity in offspring. I examine one of the central claims to emerge from the use of heritability studies in the behavioral sciences, the principle of minimal shared maternal effects, in light of the growing awareness that the maternal perinatal environment is a critical venue for the exercise of adaptive phenotypic plasticity. This consideration has important implications for both developmental and evolutionary biology.

Indexed as

Genetics, BehavioralGenomicsBrainDevelopmental BiologyDNA Copy Number VariationsEpigenomicsEvolution, MolecularFemaleGenetic Association StudiesGenotypeHumansInfant, NewbornMosaicismNeuronal PlasticityPhenotypePregnancyRetroelements

Identifiers

PMID23095378
OpenAlexW2149653276

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.