ReviewCurrent opinion in genetics & development2014
Transcriptomic insights into human brain evolution: acceleration, neutrality, heterochrony.
Review in Current opinion in genetics & development, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational reconstruction of evolutionary selection in human brain networks.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2025Article
- Isochronic development of cortical synapses in primates and mice.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Comparative transcriptomics reveals human-specific cortical features.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2023Article
- Functional orderly topography of brain networks associated with gene expression heterogeneity.Communications biology · 2022Article
- An Evolutionary Perspective of Dyslexia, Stress, and Brain Network Homeostasis.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2020Review
- Epigenetic-genetic chromatin footprinting identifies novel and subject-specific genes active in prefrontal cortex neurons.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2019Article
- Persistent metabolic youth in the aging female brain.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
- The Evolution of Gene Expression in cis and trans.Trends in genetics : TIG · 2018Review
- Loss of Brain Aerobic Glycolysis in Normal Human Aging.Cell metabolism · 2017Article
- The evolution of cognitive mechanisms in response to cultural innovations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017Article
- Transcriptomic signatures shaped by cell proportions shed light on comparative developmental biology.Genome biology · 2017Article
- The Brain Metabolome of Male Rats across the Lifespan.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Neurodevelopmental LincRNA Microsyteny Conservation and Mammalian Brain Size Evolution.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Primate brain transcriptome comparisons within the last 12 years have yielded interesting but contradictory observations on how the transcriptome evolves, and its adaptive role in human cognitive evolution. Since the human-chimpanzee common ancestor, the human prefrontal cortex transcriptome seems to have evolved more than that of the chimpanzee. But at the same time, most expression differences among species, especially those observed in adults, appear as consequences of neutral evolution at cis-regulatory sites. Adaptive expression changes in the human brain may be rare events involving timing shifts, or heterochrony, in specific neurodevelopmental processes. Disentangling adaptive and neutral expression changes, and associating these with human-specific features of the brain require improved methods, comparisons across more species, and further work on comparative development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.