Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42701979›Full record

ReviewJournal of molecular evolution2026

Regulatory Evolution and the Genetic Basis of Human Brain Expansion.

Nilmini Hettiarachchi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of molecular evolution, 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

1 author.

Nilmini HettiarachchiTokyo Metropolitan Institute of Medical Science, 2-1-6 Kamikitazawa, Setagaya ku, Tokyo, Japan. nilminihett@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evolution of the human brain is characterized by profound changes in structure and function, despite relatively limited divergence in protein-coding genes compared to other primates. This paradox has led to increasing recognition of gene regulatory elements (GREs) as primary drivers of evolutionary innovation. In this review, we synthesize current knowledge on the role of conserved noncoding elements (CNEs), human accelerated regions (HARs), and transposable element (TE)-derived sequences in shaping gene regulatory networks (GRNs) underlying brain development. Comparative analyses across humans and closely related primates, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan, reveal that while core regulatory architectures are highly conserved, subtle changes in regulatory elements drive species-specific gene expression patterns. We highlight how CNEs provide a stable regulatory framework, whereas HARs and TE-derived elements introduce lineage-specific modifications that fine-tune neurodevelopmental processes. Advances in functional genomics, including CRISPR-based perturbations, massively parallel reporter assays, and single-cell multi-omics, have enabled direct interrogation of regulatory function, linking sequence variation to cellular phenotypes. Furthermore, we discuss how regulatory evolution contributes to both cognitive innovation and susceptibility to neurological disorders. Despite significant progress, challenges remain in establishing causal relationships between regulatory variation and phenotypic outcomes. Future integration of multi-omics data and comparative models will be essential for resolving these complexities. Together, this review provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the molecular basis of primate brain evolution through the lens of gene regulation.

Indexed as

Brain evolutionEpigenomicsGene regulatory networksMulti-omics integrationNeurodevelopmentPrimates

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.