CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 356Morphological variations and asymmetryForensic and Genetic ResearchGenetic diversity and population structure

Detecting interregionally diversifying natural selection on modern human cranial form by using matched molecular and morphometric data

Open access
Roseman, Charles C.·2004·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.0402637101PMC PMC516480
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This comparison of morphological and neutral genetic variation in 10 human populations was designed to test a neutral hypothesis of cranial evolution in living and recent humans and to explain deviations from neutrality where detected. Overall, among-population differences in extant Homo sapiens cranial morphology are proportional to among-population differences in neutral molecular characteristics. For most of the populations studied, cranial morphology varies among regions in a manner consistent with neutral expectations. Removal of the effects of shared population history and structure by using the partial Mantel's test, however, does not remove the correlation between some aspects of cranial morphology and a measure of coldness of climate. The excess differentiation is most apparent in those population comparisons that involve a Siberian population living in an extremely cold environment. This finding suggests the action of natural selection, associated with regional variation in temperature, leading to among-population differentiation in excess of neutral expectations for some cranial dimensions. Those dimensions reflect the breadth of the skull, cranial vault size and shape, and aspects of nasal morphology. Although morphology for most of the world appears to vary among populations in accordance with neutral expectations in the context of population structure and history, morphology of the Siberian population appears to have undergone adaptation by natural selection.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0402637101

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several studies have found that most aspects of the skull seem to be evolving neutrally, while the shape of the nasal aperture appears to be more differentiated across human populations than expected under genetic drift.

    “Several studies have used this approach and found that while most aspects of the skull seem to be evolving neutrally, the shape of the nasal aperture appears to be more differentiated across human populations than expected under genetic drift [9,12,13].”

    From Investigating the case of human nose shape and climate adaptation (2017) · cites this paper as [12]

  • Previous Qst-based studies of craniofacial divergence assumed h2 = 0.55 and c = 1, resulting in c/h2 greater than 1.

    “In these studies, h2 was assumed to be 0.55 and c was implicitly assumed to be 1, resulting in c/h2 to be greater than 1.”

    From Investigating the case of human nose shape and climate adaptation (2017) · cites this paper as [12]

  • Our findings provide support for the idea that differences in aspects of nose shape may have evolved across populations as a result of climate-related selection pressures.

    “While our findings provide support for the idea that differences in aspects of nose shape may have evolved across populations as a result of climate-related selection pressures, something that has been demonstrated previously using craniometric data [2,12,13,41,42]”

    From Investigating the case of human nose shape and climate adaptation (2017) · cites this paper as [12]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Roseman, C. C.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Roseman, Charles C.
ORCID
Roseman, Charles C.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2004-08-23
Volume
101
Issue
35
Pages
12824-12829
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.0402637101
PMC
PMC516480
OpenAlex
W1974880087
Cited by
356
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 17
FWCI
16.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
Keywords
skull morphology, natural selection, genetic differentiation, neutral genetic diversity, morphometric variation, Siberian populations, cranial vault, nasal morphology, population structure
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Selection, Genetic, Skull, Genetic Variation, Microsatellite Repeats, Evolution, Molecular

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review