Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41188556›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2026

Convergent evolution of a conserved molecular network underlies parenting and sociality.

Tomas Kay, Patrick K Piekarski, Daniel J C Kronauer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The genetic foundations of convergent traits.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026
    Review
  3. Population Genetic Study ofEcology and evolution · 2026
    Article
  4. 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.

Tomas KayLaboratory of Social Evolution and Behaviour, The Rockefeller University, New York, NY, USA. tkay@rockefeller.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2453-2514
Patrick K PiekarskiLaboratory of Social Evolution and Behaviour, The Rockefeller University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5550-1636
Daniel J C KronauerLaboratory of Social Evolution and Behaviour, The Rockefeller University, New York, NY, USA. dkronauer@rockefeller.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4103-7729

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Across species, a major axis of variation in social behaviour relates to how offspring are reared. Parental care behaviours have independently evolved in hundreds of animal lineages. Care is usually limited to one or both parents, but in some lineages parenting is a highly cooperative endeavour. In social insects, for example, entire societies have evolved around parenting, complete with distinct adult morphs that specialize in reproduction, nursing, foraging and defence. Recent advances in omic technologies have enabled data collection across diverse taxa, revealing broad patterns in the molecular regulation of parental behaviour. These studies indicate that evolution has systematically co-opted molecular machinery that pleiotropically regulates three deeply interlinked biological processes: feeding, growth and reproduction. Where more sophisticated social systems have evolved, the same factors have been further co-opted to additionally regulate the developmental differentiation of distinct morphs, division of labour between adults and behavioural changes associated with ageing. These findings suggest that complex behaviours evolve through repeated and predictable co-option of ancient molecular systems.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalBiological EvolutionEvolution, MolecularGene Regulatory NetworksSocial BehaviorAnimalsInsectaParentingReproduction

Identifiers

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.