ArticleJournal of molecular evolution2016
Denisovans, Melanesians, Europeans, and Neandertals: The Confusion of DNA Assumptions and the Biological Species Concept.
Article in Journal of molecular evolution, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A number of recent articles have appeared on the Denisova fossil remains and attempts to produce DNA sequences from them. One of these recently appeared in Science by Vernot et al. (Science 352:235-239, 2016). We would like to advance an alternative interpretation of the data presented. One concerns the problem of contamination/degradation of the determined DNA sequenced. Just as the publication of the first Neandertal sequence included an interpretation that argued that Neandertals had not contributed any genes to modern humans, the Denisovan interpretation has considerable influence on ideas regarding human evolution. The new papers, however, confuse established ideas concerning the nature of species, as well as the use of terms like premodern, Archaic Homo, and Homo heidelbergensis. Examination of these problems presents a solution by means of reinterpreting the results. Given the claims for gene transfer among a number of Mid Pleistocene hominids, it may be time to reexamine the idea of anagenesis in hominid evolution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27517578What 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.