Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41439638›Full record

ArticleEmerging topics in life sciences2025

Five hundred million years of hunger: how animals evolved to survive essential amino acid scarcity.

Benjamin S Pickard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Emerging topics in life sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Benjamin S PickardStrathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, G4 0RE, U.K.ORCID 0000-0002-2374-6329

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Proteins are the machinery for the processes of life. Each protein is made up of a defined combination of 20 building blocks, the amino acids. The animal kingdom is distinguished from most other forms of life by a half-billion-year-old choice to relinquish the synthesis of 9 of the 20 amino acids and instead rely on their dietary acquisition for protein synthesis. From that point onwards, animals entered into a permanent and obligatory hunt for these 'essential amino Acids' (EAAs). This perspective states that this seemingly destructive event was, in fact, foundational for the animal kingdom. Hypotheses for its origins are discussed, including a newly observed bias in EAA codon nucleotide composition that may help economise their use in proteins during scarcity. Tight restrictions on the inclusion of EAAs in protein sequences would be expected, but a minority of proteins with extreme EAA compositions are found. It is hypothesised that such proteins act as sentinels of EAA shortage in the diet, prompting beneficial responses from the organism. The control of hunger behaviours and reproductive timing are two processes in which EAA-rich proteins may be important. The leptin pathway of hunger behaviour regulation and reproductive development, traditionally associated with bodily lipid homeostasis, may be sensitive to EAA levels through this sequence-based mechanism. EAAs appear to have been a strong force in animal evolution. The biology emerging from their patterns of use in our proteins provides a direct link between nutritional state and specific biological processes - a coherent route to better dietary interventions in the future.

Indexed as

Amino Acids, EssentialBiological EvolutionHungerAnimalsHumansAmino Acids, Essentialamino acid metabolismevolutionary biologygene expression and regulationhomeostasisobesityprotein synthesis

Identifiers

PMID41439638
PMCPMC12802346

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.