ArticleJournal of molecular evolution2025
The De Novo Emergence of Two Brain Genes in the Human Lineage Appears to be Unsupported.
Article in Journal of molecular evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, certain studies have claimed that cognitive features and pathologies unique to humans can be traced to certain changes in the nervous system. These are caused by genes that have likely evolved "from scratch," not having any coding precursors. The translated proteins would not appear outside of the human lineage and any orthologs in other species should be non-coding. This contrasts with research that has identified a decisive role for duplication, and modifications to regulatory sequences, for such phenotypic traits. Closer examination, however, reveals that the inferred lineage-specific emergence of at least two of these genes is likely a misinterpretation owing to a lack of peptide verification, experimental oversights, and insufficient species comparisons. A possible pseudogenic origin is proposed for one of them. The implications of these claims for the study of molecular evolution are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39725692What 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.