Cited by 16Neuropeptides and Animal PhysiologyNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorEvolution and Genetic Dynamics

Extensive Changes in the Expression of the Opioid Genes between Humans and Chimpanzees

Cruz-Gordillo, Peter, Fedrigo, Olivier, Wray, Gregory A., Babbitt, Courtney C.·2010·Brain, Behavior and Evolution

Abstract

The various means by which the body perceives, transmits, and resolves the experiences of pain and nociception are mediated by a host of molecules, including neuropeptides within the opioid gene signaling pathway. The peptide ligands and receptors encoded by this group of genes have been linked to behavioral disorders as well as a number of psychiatric affective disorders. Our aim was to explore the recent evolutionary history of these two gene families by taking a comparative genomics approach, specifically through a comparison between humans and chimpanzees. Our analyses indicate differential expression of these genes between the two species, more than expected based on genome-wide comparisons, indicating that differential expression is pervasive among the opioid genes. Of the 8 family members, three genes showed significant expression differences (PENK, PNOC, and OPRL1), with two others marginally significant (OPRM1 and OPRD1). Accelerated substitution rates along human and chimpanzee lineages within the putative regulatory regions of OPRM1, POMC, and PDYN between the human and chimpanzee branches are consistent with positive selection. Collectively, these results suggest that there may have been a selective advantage to modulating the expression of the opioid genes in humans compared with our closest living relatives. Information about the cognitive roles mediated by these genes in humans may help to elucidate the trait consequences of these putatively adaptive expression changes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000320968

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cruz-Gordillo, P., Fedrigo, O., Wray, G. A., & Babbitt, C. C.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Venue
Brain, Behavior and Evolution
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2010
Volume
76
Issue
2
Pages
154-162
ISSN
  • 0006-8977 (ISSN-L)
  • 1421-9743
OpenAlex
W1963823815
Cited by
16
References
3
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain Behavior and Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • University of California, Santa Cruz
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuropeptides and Animal Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
Keywords
gene expression evolution, human-chimpanzee comparison, positive selection, OPRM1, proopiomelanocortin, prodynorphin, proenkephalin, delta opioid receptor, regulatory elements, neuropeptides, comparative genomics
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain Chemistry, Pan troglodytes, Gene Expression Regulation, Humans, Species Specificity, Opioid Peptides, Evolution, Molecular, Genome-Wide Association Study

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