ArticlePloS one2016
Common Genetic Variants in FOXP2 Are Not Associated with Individual Differences in Language Development.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ancient regulatory evolution shapes individual language abilities in present-day humans.Science advances · 2026Article
- Ancient regulatory evolution shapes individual language abilities in present-day humans.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Association between genes regulating neural pathways for quantitative traits of speech and language disorders.NPJ genomic medicine · 2021Article
- FOXP2 expression and gray matter density in the male brains of patients with schizophrenia.Brain imaging and behavior · 2021Article
- Toward Robust Functional Neuroimaging Genetics of Cognition.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2019Article
- Functional characterization of two enhancers located downstream FOXP2.BMC medical genetics · 2019Article
- FOXP2 variation in great ape populations offers insight into the evolution of communication skills.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Genetic Approaches to Understanding Psychiatric Disease.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Much of our current knowledge regarding the association of FOXP2 with speech and language development comes from singleton and small family studies where a small number of rare variants have been identified. However, neither genome-wide nor gene-specific studies have provided evidence that common polymorphisms in the gene contribute to individual differences in language development in the general population. One explanation for this inconsistency is that previous studies have been limited to relatively small samples of individuals with low language abilities, using low density gene coverage. The current study examined the association between common variants in FOXP2 and a quantitative measure of language ability in a population-based cohort of European decent (n = 812). No significant associations were found for a panel of 13 SNPs that covered the coding region of FOXP2 and extended into the promoter region. Power analyses indicated we should have been able to detect a QTL variance of 0.02 for an associated allele with MAF of 0.2 or greater with 80% power. This suggests that, if a common variant associated with language ability in this gene does exist, it is likely of small effect. Our findings lead us to conclude that while genetic variants in FOXP2 may be significant for rare forms of language impairment, they do not contribute appreciably to individual variation in the normal range as found in the general population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.