Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36479251›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in genetics2022

Keeping the balance: Trade-offs between human brain evolution, autism, and schizophrenia.

Eryk Duński, Aleksandra Pękowska

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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.

Eryk DuńskiDioscuri Centre for Chromatin Biology and Epigenomics, Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Aleksandra PękowskaDioscuri Centre for Chromatin Biology and Epigenomics, Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The unique qualities of the human brain are a product of a complex evolutionary process. Evolution, famously described by François Jacob as a "tinkerer," builds upon existing genetic elements by modifying and repurposing them for new functions. Genetic changes in DNA may lead to the emergence of new genes or cause altered gene expression patterns. Both gene and regulatory element mutations may lead to new functions. Yet, this process may lead to side-effects. An evolutionary trade-off occurs when an otherwise beneficial change, which is important for evolutionary success and is under strong positive selection, concurrently results in a detrimental change in another trait. Pleiotropy occurs when a gene affects multiple traits. Antagonistic pleiotropy is a phenomenon whereby a genetic variant leads to an increase in fitness at one life-stage or in a specific environment, but simultaneously decreases fitness in another respect. Therefore, it is conceivable that the molecular underpinnings of evolution of highly complex traits, including brain size or cognitive ability, under certain conditions could result in deleterious effects, which would increase the susceptibility to psychiatric or neurodevelopmental diseases. Here, we discuss possible trade-offs and antagonistic pleiotropies between evolutionary change in a gene sequence, dosage or activity and the susceptibility of individuals to autism spectrum disorders and schizophrenia. We present current knowledge about genes and alterations in gene regulatory landscapes, which have likely played a role in establishing human-specific traits and have been implicated in those diseases.

Indexed as

ASDcognitionevolutionpsychiatric discordersschizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID36479251
PMCPMC9719942

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.