ReviewProceedings. Biological sciences2016
Brain evolution and development: adaptation, allometry and constraint.
Review in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 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
58 citing papers in PubMed, 130 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Exploring Larval Axolotl Brain Development: Insights Into Developmental and Functional Constraints.Evolution & development · 2026Article
- Sensory Enrichment and Deprivation During Development: Limited Effects on the Volumes of CNS Neuropils in Two Spiders With Different Ecology.The Journal of comparative neurology · 2025Article
- Repeated evolution of reduced visual investment at the onset of ecological speciation in high-altitudeEvolution letters · 2025Article
- Modality-specific long-term memory enhancement inPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Embodied cognitive evolution and the limits of convergence.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
- Article
- Sexual dimorphism and morphological integration in the orchid bee brain.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A Novel Practical Session to Teach Concepts of Allometric Scaling of Brain Structures to Undergraduate Students Using Vertebrate Brains.Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Article
- Small Brains: Body Shape Constrains Tissue Allocation to the Central Nervous System in Ant-Mimicking Spiders.The Journal of comparative neurology · 2024Article
- Multi-scaling allometry in human development, mammalian morphology, and tree growth.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Evolutionary-developmental (evo-devo) dynamics of hominin brain size.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- Review
- Evolution of neural circuitry and cognition.Biology letters · 2024Review
- Article
- Trade-Offs in the Sensory Brain between Diurnal and Nocturnal Rodents.Brain, behavior and evolution · 2024Article
- Multiple axes of visual system diversity in Ithomiini, an ecologically diverse tribe of mimetic butterflies.The Journal of experimental biology · 2023Article
- A Comparative Perspective on the Cerebello-Cerebral System and Its Link to Cognition.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2023Review
- Phylogenetic comparative analysis of the cerebello-cerebral system in 34 species highlights primate-general expansion of cerebellar crura I-II.Communications biology · 2023Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Phenotypic traits are products of two processes: evolution and development. But how do these processes combine to produce integrated phenotypes? Comparative studies identify consistent patterns of covariation, or allometries, between brain and body size, and between brain components, indicating the presence of significant constraints limiting independent evolution of separate parts. These constraints are poorly understood, but in principle could be either developmental or functional. The developmental constraints hypothesis suggests that individual components (brain and body size, or individual brain components) tend to evolve together because natural selection operates on relatively simple developmental mechanisms that affect the growth of all parts in a concerted manner. The functional constraints hypothesis suggests that correlated change reflects the action of selection on distributed functional systems connecting the different sub-components, predicting more complex patterns of mosaic change at the level of the functional systems and more complex genetic and developmental mechanisms. These hypotheses are not mutually exclusive but make different predictions. We review recent genetic and neurodevelopmental evidence, concluding that functional rather than developmental constraints are the main cause of the observed patterns.
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.