Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27206521›Full record

ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2016

The evolution of anthropoid molar proportions.

Katherine E Carter, Steven Worthington

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The Interrelation Among Allometry, Phylogeny, and Diet in the Molar Cervix.American journal of biological anthropology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Teeth, prenatal growth rates, and the evolution of human-like pregnancy in laterProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Mammalian molar complexity follows simple, predictable patterns.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Mammal Molar Size Ratios and the Inhibitory Cascade at the Intraspecific Scale.Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England) · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

2 authors.

Katherine E CarterDepartment of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, 02138, USA. carter@fas.harvard.edu.
Steven WorthingtonInstitute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University, 1737 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, 02138, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDevelopmental processes that underpin morphological variation have become a focus of interest when attempting to interpret macroevolutionary patterns. Recently, the Dental Inhibitory Cascade (DIC) model has been suggested to explain much of the variation in mammalian molar size proportions. We tested the macroevolutionary implications of this model using anthropoid primate species (n=100), focusing on overall morphological patterns, as well as predictions made about molar size variability, direct developmental control, and diet.

resultsOf the species sampled, 56 % had centroids that fell within regions of molar proportion morphospace consistent with the DIC model. We also found that the third molar had greater variation in size than either the first or second molars, as expected by the model. Some DIC model predictions were not supported, however, such as the expected proportion of M 2/M 1 when the third molar is absent. Furthermore, we found that some variability in third molar size could not be explained by the influence of the inhibitory cascade. Overall, we found considerable clade-specific differences in relative molar sizes among anthropoid primates, with hominoids and cercopithecins strongly divergent from DIC model predictions, and platyrrhines, colobines, and papionins more consistent with the inhibitory cascade. Finally, we investigated reasons why some clades deviated from DIC model expectations. Adaptations for frugivory (e.g., bunodont cusp relief) appeared to be one driver of relatively larger second molars and have evolved independently in multiple lineages of anthropoids.

conclusionsThe DIC model explains some of the variation in anthropoid primate molar proportions. However, there are interesting deviations away from this broad mammalian pattern, particularly in hominoids and cercopithecins, which suggest the model is only one of multiple mechanisms determining morphological variability in mammalian teeth.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionAdaptation, PhysiologicalAnimalsBayes TheoremDietHaplorhiniLinear ModelsMammalsMolarSpecies SpecificityAnthropoid primatesBayesian phylogenetic generalized linear mixed modelsDental inhibitory cascadeEvo-devoMolar proportions

Identifiers

PMID27206521
PMCPMC4875740

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.