Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39953642›Full record

ReviewJournal of physiological anthropology2025

Human dispersal into East Eurasia: ancient genome insights and the need for research on physiological adaptations.

Steven Abood, Hiroki Oota

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of physiological anthropology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

2 authors.

Steven AboodDepartment of Biological Sciences, Graduate School of Science, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan.
Hiroki OotaDepartment of Biological Sciences, Graduate School of Science, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan. hiroki_oota@bs.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0746-2729

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans have long pondered their genesis. The answer to the great question of where Homo sapiens come from has evolved in conjunction with biotechnologies that have allowed us to more brightly illuminate our distant past. The "Multiregional Evolution" model was once the hegemonic theory of Homo sapiens origins, but in the last 30 years, it has been supplanted by the "Out of Africa" model. Here, we review the major findings that have resulted in this paradigmatic shift. These include hominin brain expansion, classical insight from the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA) regarding the timing of the divergence point between Africans and non-Africans, and next-generation sequencing (NGS) of the Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes. These findings largely bolstered the "Out of Africa" model, although they also revealed a small degree of introgression of the Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes into those of non-African Homo sapiens. We also review paleogenomic studies for which migration route, north or south, early migrants to East Eurasia most likely traversed. Whichever route was taken, the migrants moved to higher latitudes, which necessitated adaptation for lower light conditions, colder clines, and pro-adipogenic mechanisms to counteract food scarcity. Further genetic and epigenetic investigations of these physiological adaptations constitute an integral aspect of the story of human origins and human migration to East Asia.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalGenome, HumanHuman MigrationAnimalsAnthropology, PhysicalBiological EvolutionDNA, AncientHominidaeHumansNeanderthalsDNA, AncientCold adaptationEast Asian migrationMultiregional Evolution modelObesityOut of Africa model

Identifiers

PMID39953642
PMCPMC11829451

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.