4.6 Article

An Adaptive Threshold in Mammalian Neocortical Evolution

Journal

PLOS BIOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002000

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [SFB 655, TRR 83]
  2. European Research Council [250197]
  3. Fonds der Chemischen Industrie
  4. International Max Planck Research School of Molecular Cell Biology and Bioengineering
  5. Technische Universitat Dresden

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Expansion of the neocortex is a hallmark of human evolution. However, determining which adaptive mechanisms facilitated its expansion remains an open question. Here we show, using the gyrencephaly index (GI) and other physiological and life-history data for 102 mammalian species, that gyrencephaly is an ancestral mammalian trait. We find that variation in GI does not evolve linearly across species, but that mammals constitute two principal groups above and below a GI threshold value of 1.5, approximately equal to 10(9) neurons, which may be characterized by distinct constellations of physiological and life-history traits. By integrating data on neurogenic period, neuroepithelial founder pool size, cell-cycle length, progenitor-type abundances, and cortical neuron number into discrete mathematical models, we identify symmetric proliferative divisions of basal progenitors in the subventricular zone of the developing neocortex as evolutionarily necessary for generating a 14-fold increase in daily prenatal neuron production, traversal of the GI threshold, and thus establishment of two principal groups. We conclude that, despite considerable neuroanatomical differences, changes in the length of the neurogenic period alone, rather than any novel neurogenic progenitor lineage, are sufficient to explain differences in neuron number and neocortical size between species within the same principal group.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available