4.8 Article

Molecular archaeology of human cognitive traits

Journal

CELL REPORTS
Volume 40, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2022.111287

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. BMVIT
  2. BMDW
  3. Styria
  4. SFG
  5. Vienna Business Agency [854174]
  6. Research Institute of Molecular Pathology
  7. Boehringer Ingelheim
  8. Austrian Research Promotion Agency
  9. European Community/ERC [311701]
  10. Austrian Science Fund - FWF [I-4686]
  11. European Research Council (ERC) [311701] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

By studying the evolution of the human brain, we found that the cognitive demands of humans have become increasingly complex over time, accompanied by adaptive evolution in the areas of language and strategic thinking.
The brains and minds of our human ancestors remain inaccessible for experimental exploration. Therefore, we reconstructed human cognitive evolution by projecting nonsynonymous/synonymous rate ratios (omega values) in mammalian phylogeny onto the anatomically modem human (AMH) brain. This atlas retraces human neurogenetic selection and allows imputation of ancestral evolution in task-related functional networks (FNs). Adaptive evolution (high omega values) is associated with excitatory neurons and synaptic function. It shifted from FNs for motor control in anthropoid ancestry (60-41 mya) to attention in ancient hominoids (26-19 mya) and hominids (19-7.4 mya). Selection in FNs for language emerged with an early hominin ancestor (7.4-1.7 mya) and was later accompanied by adaptive evolution in FNs for strategic thinking during recent (0.8 mya-present) speciation of AMHs. This pattern mirrors increasingly complex cognitive demands and suggests that co-selection for language alongside strategic thinking may have separated AMHs from their archaic Denisovan and Neanderthal relatives.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available