Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23696865›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

A bayesian approach to genome/linguistic relationships in native South Americans.

Carlos Eduardo Guerra Amorim, Rafael Bisso-Machado, Virginia Ramallo, Maria Cátira Bortolini, Sandro Luis Bonatto, Francisco Mauro Salzano, Tábita Hünemeier

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. A multidisciplinary overview on the Tupi-speaking people expansion.American journal of biological anthropology · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Carlos Eduardo Guerra AmorimDepartamento de Genética, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Rafael Bisso-Machado
Virginia Ramallo
Maria Cátira Bortolini
Sandro Luis Bonatto
Francisco Mauro Salzano
Tábita Hünemeier
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul · BRPontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The relationship between the evolution of genes and languages has been studied for over three decades. These studies rely on the assumption that languages, as many other cultural traits, evolve in a gene-like manner, accumulating heritable diversity through time and being subjected to evolutionary mechanisms of change. In the present work we used genetic data to evaluate South American linguistic classifications. We compared discordant models of language classifications to the current Native American genome-wide variation using realistic demographic models analyzed under an Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) framework. Data on 381 STRs spread along the autosomes were gathered from the literature for populations representing the five main South Amerindian linguistic groups: Andean, Arawakan, Chibchan-Paezan, Macro-Jê, and Tupí. The results indicated a higher posterior probability for the classification proposed by J.H. Greenberg in 1987, although L. Campbell's 1997 classification cannot be ruled out. Based on Greenberg's classification, it was possible to date the time of Tupí-Arawakan divergence (2.8 kya), and the time of emergence of the structure between present day major language groups in South America (3.1 kya).

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremGenetic VariationGenome, HumanHumansIndians, North AmericanLanguageLinguisticsSouth America

Identifiers

PMID23696865
PMCPMC3656118
OpenAlexW2095435387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.