Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25567903›Full record

ArticleEvolutionary applications2010

Evolutionary genomics of human intellectual disability.

Bernard Crespi, Kyle Summers, Steve Dorus

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolutionary applications, 2010. 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
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Evolutionary applications summer 2011.Evolutionary applications · 2011
    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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Bernard CrespiDepartment of Biosciences, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, Canada.
Kyle SummersDepartment of Biology, East Carolina University Greenville, NC, USA.
Steve DorusDepartment of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath Bath, UK.
East Carolina University · USSimon Fraser University · CAUniversity of Bath · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies have postulated that X-linked and autosomal genes underlying human intellectual disability may have also mediated the evolution of human cognition. We have conducted the first comprehensive assessment of the extent and patterns of positive Darwinian selection on intellectual disability genes in humans. We report three main findings. First, as noted in some previous reports, intellectual disability genes with primary functions in the central nervous system exhibit a significant concentration to the X chromosome. Second, there was no evidence for a higher incidence of recent positive selection on X-linked than autosomal intellectual disability genes, nor was there a higher incidence of selection on such genes overall, compared to sets of control genes. However, the X-linked intellectual disability genes inferred to be subject to recent positive selection were concentrated in the Rho GTP-ase pathway, a key signaling pathway in neural development and function. Third, among all intellectual disability genes, there was evidence for a higher incidence of recent positive selection on genes involved in DNA repair, but not for genes involved in other functions. These results provide evidence that alterations to genes in the Rho GTP-ase and DNA-repair pathways may play especially-important roles in the evolution of human cognition and vulnerability to genetically-based intellectual disability.

Indexed as

geneticgenomicintellectual disabilitypositive selection

Identifiers

PMID25567903
PMCPMC3352458
OpenAlexW2146944559

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.