Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41703128›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Natural selection and language genes in humans.

Rob DeSalle, Guilherme Lepski, Analia Arévalo, Dean Bobo, Noel LaVergne, Shigeru Miyagawa, Ian Tattersall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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

7 authors.

Rob DeSalleInstitute for Comparative Genomics, American Museum of Natural History, 79th at Central Park West, New York, NY, 10024, USA. desalle@amnh.org.
Guilherme LepskiDepartments of Neurology and Psychiatry, Medical School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Analia ArévaloLaboratory of Experimental Surgery (LIM26), Medical School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Dean BoboInstitute for Comparative Genomics, American Museum of Natural History, 79th at Central Park West, New York, NY, 10024, USA.
Noel LaVergneInstitute for Comparative Genomics, American Museum of Natural History, 79th at Central Park West, New York, NY, 10024, USA.
Shigeru MiyagawaDepartment of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Ian TattersallDivision of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA.

Funding

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2018/18900-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study we construct lists of candidate genes for articulate language. Analysis of coding regions of over 100 candidate genes for the effects of natural selection (directional episodic selection and relaxed/intensified selection) in the various lineages of primates (thirty-four nonhuman primate species, plus Homo sapiens Neanderthals and Denisovans) revealed a burst of altered selection effects on neural genes at the node leading to the Homo sapiens-Neanderthal-Denisova triad, followed by bursts of selection effects on neural genes related to language in both the Denisovan and Neanderthal lineages. Those latter increases in involvement of neural genes in Neanderthals and Denisovans can be contrasted with the missing or slight response to selection on those same genes in the H. sapiens lineage. The genes involved in these bursts can mostly be classified as involved in synapse structure and maintenance. We develop a hypothesis for how synaptic efficiency could be related to language acquisition in these lineages.

Indexed as

LanguageSelection, GeneticAnimalsEvolution, MolecularHumansNeanderthals

Identifiers

PMID41703128
PMCPMC13003089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.