1Department of Pediatrics/Rady Children's Hospital San Diego, University of California San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA 2Department of Cellular & Molecular Medicine, University of California San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA 3UCSD Stem Cell Programme, University of California San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA 4Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny (CARTA), La Jolla, CA, USA 5Kavli Institute for Brain and Mind, University of California San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA
Alysson R. Muotri
Roles:
Conceptualization,
Writing – Original Draft Preparation,
Writing – Review & Editing
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS
Abstract
Human brain organoids, generated from pluripotent stem cells, have emerged as a promising technique for modeling early stages of human neurodevelopment in controlled laboratory conditions. Although the applications for disease modeling in a dish have become routine, the use of these brain organoids as evolutionary tools is only now getting momentum. Here, we will review the current state of the art on the use of brain organoids from different species and the molecular and cellular insights generated from these studies. Besides, we will discuss how this model might be beneficial for human health and the limitations and future perspectives of this technology.
Corresponding author:
Alysson R. Muotri
Competing interests:
ARM is a co-founder of and has an equity interest in Tismoo, a company dedicated to genetic analysis and brain organoid modeling focusing on therapeutic applications customized for autism spectrum disorder and other neurological disorders with genetic origins. The terms of this arrangement have been reviewed and approved by the University of California San Diego per its conflict-of-interest policies.
Grant information:
ARM is supported by the Neanderthal Brain Foundation, grants from the National Institutes of Health through the U19MH1073671, part of the National Cooperative Reprogrammed Cell Research Groups (NCRCRG) to Study Mental Illness, and a NARSAD Independent Investigator Grant to ARM.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
What is it that makes us uniquely human? Among several features of our species, perhaps the most impactful characteristic consists of our sophisticated brains and all the abilities and advanced lifestyles we all enjoy. However, a complex brain came with a cost. The vulnerability for human-specific neurological disorders might well be an undesired evolutionary trade-off. Although many genetic mutations might also cause diseases in other animals, the genomic landscape of humans makes our species more susceptible to certain neurological disorders1,2. Gaining a clearer understanding of human brain evolution is crucial to interpreting how human genetic variants lead to disease. Therefore, understanding the evolutionary path of the modern human brain will likely illuminate the origins of conditions such as autism, dementia, or schizophrenia, which are considerable burdens to all present and future human societies.
Our knowledge of human brain development is deficient and there are gaps in the critical steps leading to the cellular organization and the formation of functional networks that are the basis of cognition. The limited accessibility of the human (and also non-human primate, or NHP) brain has blocked our understanding of neurodevelopment, especially at very early stages. During embryogenesis, a limited number of pluripotent embryonic stem cells will give rise to a multi-cellular and complex nervous system in the brain, which orchestrates many of the autonomous and non-autonomous functions of the body. In utero experimental access to ape brains is not always possible. Instead, scientists have relied on less invasive passive alternatives, such as ultrasound and functional imaging. Most of our understanding of normal and pathological brain conditions comes from postmortem tissues that represent only a blurry snapshot of a highly dynamic tissue. Also, the neuroanatomical and functional heterogeneity that individuals have because of their genetic and environmental backgrounds adds another obstacle to fully understanding the typical and unhealthy progression of neurodevelopment3.
Brain organoids, generated from pluripotent stem cells, are multi-cellular, three-dimensional self-assemble miniaturized structures that mimic the dynamic organization4,5 and molecular profile of the developing human embryonic and fetal brain6–9. These structures can grow free floating in media or embedded in matrigel and develop different brain regions using endogenous patterning cues10,11. Alternatively, cells could be patterned early on by exposure to specific cocktails of factors, coaxing the identity of the cells toward a specific brain region4,12,13. Differently patterned organoids independently created could be fused, exchanging signals among the different brain regions, stimulating cell exchange14–16 or reciprocal projections12,17. The “lego-organoid” approach can recreate specific circuit formations in a more controlled and reproducible fashion than non-patterned cerebral organoids.
Human brain organoid has recently contributed to the understanding of several neurological conditions (reviewed extensively in 18–20), including typically human conditions such as schizophrenia21 and autism22. Interestingly, the fact that brain organoids can be generated from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs)23,24, reprogrammed from somatic cells of any species, offered an unprecedented opportunity to compare early stages of human neurodevelopment with those of other primates, including our closest NHP relatives: the chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus)25–27. These three species have very similar genomes, including nearly 98% of alignable genomic sequence28. However, cellular and molecular phenotypes, especially at similar stages of development, are difficult to establish, mainly owing to limited access to live embryonic material from humans and NHPs. Thus, the study and manipulation of brain organoids in a dish are novel and promising evolutionary tools25.
LINEs might be responsible for human-specific diseases
The first comparative study between human and NHP iPSCs revealed unexpected differential regulation of long interspersed element-1 (L1, also known as LINE-1) endogenous retrotransposons29. L1 elements are autonomous mobile elements present in around 20% of the mammalian genomes and have remained active during evolution30–33. Mobilization of L1s can impact the human genome and is associated with several human disorders34,35. Among the top 50 genes that were differentially expressed between human and NHP iPSCs, two L1-restricting factors—APOBEC3B (also known as A3B) and PIWIL2—were found upregulated in human cells. The experimental manipulation of A3B and PIWIL2 levels in the pluripotent stem cells supported a causal inverse relationship with L1 retrotransposition. Increased levels of L1 retrotransposition suggested that NHP-derived iPSCs would be more susceptible or permissive to new insertions. An increased copy number of species-specific L1 elements in the genome of chimpanzees was observed when compared with humans. The data support the idea that increased L1 mobility in NHPs might not be limited to the pluripotent stage and may also occur in the germline during primate evolution. Thus, it is possible to speculate that the activity of L1 elements has differentially shaped the human genome and still has adaptive significance.
The RNA from L1 elements might also have an impact on human health. Aicardi–Goutières syndrome (AGS) type I is characterized by a dramatic neuronal loss, leading to lifelong disability36. AGS can be caused by mutations in the three-prime repair exonuclease I (TREX1) gene37. Curiously, rodent models of AGS do not mimic the severe neurological aspect of the human condition38. However, AGS-derived brain organoids do mimic the neurodegeneration and striking microcephaly seen during patient neurodevelopment in utero39. Neuronal death in the brain organoids was caused, at least partially, by a substantial exposure of type I interferon, a pro-inflammatory cytokine secreted by astrocytes. The innate immune reaction in the astrocytes was triggered by the accumulation of L1 retrotransposons in the cell because of TREX1 absence. L1 elements are different between humans and other animals40. Evidence that L1 activity could contribute to other neurological disorders, such as Huntington’s disease41, Down syndrome, and Alzheimer’s disease42, and aging43 has recently been provided. It is an attractive hypothesis that the sequence-specific L1 differences might contribute to several human conditions, creating the potential for unconventional treatments using reverse transcriptase inhibitors, such as anti-HIV drugs.
Emergent viruses and brain defects
Endogenous viruses are not the only ones affecting human evolution. Human brain organoids played an essential role in the causal link demonstration between the Brazilian Zika virus and the microcephaly outbreak in Brazil. The relatively slow human neurodevelopment, compared with that of other experimental animal models mimicked by the human brain organoids in a dish, allowed investigators to dissect how the virus could infect neural progenitor cells leading to defects in the cortical plate44–46. Moreover, brain organoids from NHPs revealed differences in viral replication rates of the Brazilian strain compared with the African Zika virus at the same developmental stage. This observation might suggest that the Zika virus can adapt to different primates. Evidence for specific mutations in the circulating Brazilian Zika virus has emerged47 but it is unclear whether these variants were responsible for the dramatic phenotypes seen in the affected human babies. The abundance of human brain organoids was also a positive feature to rapidly screen for drugs that could prevent infection48,49 or block viral replication and eventual vertical transmission50.
Exploring cortical development
In the past, testing hypotheses about human brain evolution was restricted to manipulations in animals or non-relevant cell types. Owing to cellular reprogramming, it is now possible to compare differences and similarities between human neurodevelopment and that of other primates without the use of embryonic materials that are ethically and technically difficult to access29,51. The ability to create cortical brain organoids from human and other NHP iPSCs provides a unique opportunity to study the expansion of the neocortex in a dish26,52. By contrasting brain organoids of humans with those of chimpanzees, it was possible to determine a subtle differentiation between timing and lengthening of prometaphase-metaphase in human apical mitosis that is specific to proliferating neural progenitor cells27,53,54. It is possible that subtle differences at very early stages have a more dramatic impact later in development and thus set humans apart from other primates.
Cortical tissues generated from human, chimpanzee, orangutan, and rhesus iPSC-derived brain organoids were also used for a dynamic transcriptional analysis55. Several long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) were detected in specific cell types and stages of differentiation in all of the species. LncRNAs are implicated in several molecular mechanisms, including the regulation of neurodevelopment56,57. The conservation of pattern expression on these tissue-specific lncRNAs in all of these primates indicates a possible role in transition stages during neurodevelopment. Another recent work that contrasted brain organoids from human and NHP iPSCs also described gene network conservation among primates while identifying a set of 261 genes that are human-specific58. Some of these genes overlap with recent chromosomal segmental duplications59. Interestingly, increased activation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway was validated in the radial glia cells of the outer subventricular zone of human fetal brain tissues, possibly contributing to the neocortex expansion during evolution. The creation of a “brain organoid zoo”, which has representatives of different primates and other species, might help us to resolve critical molecular and cellular steps to comprehend brain evolution better.
Discussion and future perspectives
Our natural interest in understanding the processes that make us human goes beyond mere anthropocentrism and philosophical debates about the human condition. Novel knowledge gained from interspecies comparisons can potentially contribute to biomedical advances. For example, humans and other primates can be distinguished by AIDS progression60, malaria vulnerability (immunity against Plasmodium falciparum)61, Alzheimer’s disease (absence of neurofibrillary tangles)62, and susceptibility to certain cancers63 as well as other differences64,65. The identification and characterization of the cellular and molecular mechanism that distinguishes humans from our closest relatives at early stages of embryogenesis and in specific types of cells are likely to become a new resource for evolutionary studies66. In this context, recent advances in iPSC-derived neural progenitor cells and brain organoids are an attractive tool to dissect cellular and molecular events that contribute to the uniqueness of the human brain. However, this artificial in vitro approach is not without serious inherent limitations. Most comparative studies are standardizing the growth of the brain organoids using human culture conditions. This “humanized” situation is likely masking important differences among species. The use of “neutral backgrounds”, such as transplanting different primate cells in the mouse brain54, could mitigate this concern. Other limitations are intrinsic to the brain organoid model: lack of specific cell types, cellular stress, organized brain regions, and endogenous vascularization. The use of patterned brain organoids might help to reduce experimental variability and increase confidence in the data, especially when differences are subtle. Thus, owing to these limitations, validation or confirmation of findings in primary tissues58,67 or even intact functional brain68 is the gold standard in this field.
Nonetheless, it is expected that some of these technical shortcomings might be resolved in the next few years (reviewed in 18,69). In the future, evolutionary studies using brain organoids would benefit from genome editing for candidate approaches. More sophisticated comparisons will also incorporate functional readouts, such as the emergence of network activity and oscillatory waves in long-term, mature brain organoids68. Finally, the perspective to extrapolate the comparative approach of modern humans to other extinct hominins, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans, by using human brain organoids carrying ancestral genetic variants will lead to an entire new field70.
Abbreviations
AGS, Aicardi–Goutières syndrome; iPSC, induced pluripotent stem cell; L1 or LINE-1, long interspersed element-1; lncRNA, long non-coding RNA; NHP, non-human primate; TREX1, three-prime repair exonuclease I
Grant information
ARM is supported by the Neanderthal Brain Foundation, grants from the National Institutes of Health through the U19MH1073671, part of the National Cooperative Reprogrammed Cell Research Groups (NCRCRG) to Study Mental Illness, and a NARSAD Independent Investigator Grant to ARM.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
4.
Eiraku M, Watanabe K, Matsuo-Takasaki M, et al.:
Self-organized formation of polarized cortical tissues from ESCs and its active manipulation by extrinsic signals.
Cell Stem Cell.
2008; 3(5): 519–32. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
5.
Kadoshima T, Sakaguchi H, Nakano T, et al.:
Self-organization of axial polarity, inside-out layer pattern, and species-specific progenitor dynamics in human ES cell-derived neocortex.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
2013; 110(50): 20284–9. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
17.
Xiang Y, Tanaka Y, Cakir B, et al.:
hESC-Derived Thalamic Organoids Form Reciprocal Projections When Fused with Cortical Organoids.
Cell Stem Cell.
2019; 24(3): 487–497.e7. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
21.
Stachowiak EK, Benson CA, Narla ST, et al.:
Cerebral organoids reveal early cortical maldevelopment in schizophrenia-computational anatomy and genomics, role of FGFR1.
Transl Psychiatry.
2017; 7(11): 6. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
25.
Hrvoj-Mihic B, Marchetto MC, Gage FH, et al.:
Novel tools, classic techniques: evolutionary studies using primate pluripotent stem cells.
Biol Psychiatry.
2014; 75(12): 929–35. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
26.
Hrvoj-Mihic B, Bienvenu T, Stefanacci L, et al.:
Evolution, development, and plasticity of the human brain: from molecules to bones.
Front Hum Neurosci.
2013; 7: 707. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
29.
Marchetto MCN, Narvaiza I, Denli AM, et al.:
Differential L1 regulation in pluripotent stem cells of humans and apes.
Nature.
2013; 503(7477): 525–9. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
30.
Lander ES, Linton LM, Birren B, et al.:
Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome.
Nature.
2001; 409(6822): 860–921. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
31.
Gibbs RA, Weinstock GM, Metzker ML, et al.:
Genome sequence of the Brown Norway rat yields insights into mammalian evolution.
Nature.
2004; 428(6982): 493–521. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
32.
Mouse Genome Sequencing Consortium, Waterston RH, Lindblad-Toh K, et al.:
Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome.
Nature.
2002; 420(6915): 520–62. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
34.
Thomas CA, Paquola AC, Muotri AR:
LINE-1 retrotransposition in the nervous system.
Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol.
2012; 28: 555–73. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
36.
Crow YJ, Chase DS, Lowenstein Schmidt J, et al.:
Characterization of human disease phenotypes associated with mutations in TREX1, RNASEH2A, RNASEH2B, RNASEH2C, SAMHD1, ADAR, and IFIH1.
Am J Med Genet A.
2015; 167A(2): 296–312. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
37.
Crow YJ, Manel N:
Aicardi-Goutières syndrome and the type I interferonopathies.
Nat Rev Immunol.
2015; 15(7): 429–40. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
38.
Gall A, Treuting P, Elkon KB, et al.:
Autoimmunity initiates in nonhematopoietic cells and progresses via lymphocytes in an interferon-dependent autoimmune disease.
Immunity.
2012; 36(1): 120–31. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
39.
Thomas CA, Tejwani L, Trujillo CA, et al.:
Modeling of TREX1-Dependent Autoimmune Disease using Human Stem Cells Highlights L1 Accumulation as a Source of Neuroinflammation.
Cell Stem Cell.
2017; 21(3): 319–331.e8. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
40.
Xue AT, Ruggiero RP, Hickerson MJ, et al.:
Differential Effect of Selection against LINE Retrotransposons among Vertebrates Inferred from Whole-Genome Data and Demographic Modeling.
Genome Biol Evol.
2018; 10(5): 1265–81. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
44.
Cugola FR, Fernandes IR, Russo FB, et al.:
The Brazilian Zika virus strain causes birth defects in experimental models.
Nature.
2016; 534(7606): 267–71. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
46.
Gabriel E, Ramani A, Karow U, et al.:
Recent Zika Virus Isolates Induce Premature Differentiation of Neural Progenitors in Human Brain Organoids.
Cell Stem Cell.
2017; 20(3): 397–406.e5. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
48.
Shiryaev SA, Mesci P, Pinto A, et al.:
Repurposing of the anti-malaria drug chloroquine for Zika Virus treatment and prophylaxis.
Sci Rep.
2017; 7(1): 15771. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
51.
Gallego Romero I, Pavlovic BJ, Hernando-Herraez I, et al.:
A panel of induced pluripotent stem cells from chimpanzees: a resource for comparative functional genomics.
eLife.
2015; 4: e07103. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
52.
Herculano-Houzel S:
Neuronal scaling rules for primate brains: the primate advantage.
Prog Brain Res.
2012; 195: 325–40. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
53.
Otani T, Marchetto MC, Gage FH, et al.:
2D and 3D Stem Cell Models of Primate Cortical Development Identify Species-Specific Differences in Progenitor Behavior Contributing to Brain Size.
Cell Stem Cell.
2016; 18(4): 467–80. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
54.
Marchetto MC, Hrvoj-Mihic B, Kerman BE, et al.:
Species-specific maturation profiles of human, chimpanzee and bonobo neural cells.
eLife.
2019; 8: pii: e37527. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
55.
Field AR, Jacobs FMJ, Fiddes IT, et al.:
Structurally Conserved Primate LncRNAs Are Transiently Expressed during Human Cortical Differentiation and Influence Cell-Type-Specific Genes.
Stem Cell Reports.
2019; 12(2): 245–57. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
59.
Sudmant PH, Huddleston J, Catacchio CR, et al.:
Evolution and diversity of copy number variation in the great ape lineage.
Genome Res.
2013; 23(9): 1373–82. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
60.
Novembre FJ, Saucier M, Anderson DC, et al.:
Development of AIDS in a chimpanzee infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1.
J Virol.
1997; 71(5): 4086–91. PubMed Abstract
| Free Full Text
61.
Escalante AA, Ayala FJ:
Phylogeny of the malarial genus Plasmodium, derived from rRNA gene sequences.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
1994; 91(24): 11373–7. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
62.
Gearing M, Rebeck GW, Hyman BT, et al.:
Neuropathology and apolipoprotein E profile of aged chimpanzees: implications for Alzheimer disease.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
1994; 91(20): 9382–6. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
63.
Seibold HR, Wolf RH:
Neoplasms and proliferative lesions in 1065 nonhuman primate necropsies.
Lab Anim Sci.
1973; 23(4): 533–9. PubMed Abstract
65.
Varki A, Altheide TK:
Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: searching for needles in a haystack.
Genome Res.
2005; 15(12): 1746–58. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
68.
Trujillo CA, Gao R, Negraes PD, et al.:
Nested oscillatory dynamics in cortical organoids model early human brain network development.
bioRxiv.
2018. Publisher Full Text
69.
Setia H, Muotri AR:
Brain organoids as a model system for human neurodevelopment and disease.
Semin Cell Dev Biol.
2019; pii: S1084-9521(18)30061-2. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
1
Department of Pediatrics/Rady Children's Hospital San Diego, University of California San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA 2
Department of Cellular & Molecular Medicine, University of California San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA 3
UCSD Stem Cell Programme, University of California San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA 4
Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny (CARTA), La Jolla, CA, USA 5
Kavli Institute for Brain and Mind, University of California San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA
Alysson R. Muotri
Roles:
Conceptualization,
Writing – Original Draft Preparation,
Writing – Review & Editing
ARM is a co-founder of and has an equity interest in Tismoo, a company dedicated to genetic analysis and brain organoid modeling focusing on therapeutic applications customized for autism spectrum disorder and other neurological disorders with genetic origins. The terms of this arrangement have been reviewed and approved by the University of California San Diego per its conflict-of-interest policies.
ARM is supported by the Neanderthal Brain Foundation, grants from the National Institutes of Health through the U19MH1073671, part of the National Cooperative Reprogrammed Cell Research Groups (NCRCRG) to Study Mental Illness, and a NARSAD Independent Investigator Grant to ARM.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Muotri AR. Brain organoids and insights on human evolution [version 1; peer review: 4 approved]. F1000Research 2019, 8(F1000 Faculty Rev):760 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.18495.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.
Share
Open Peer Review
Current Reviewer Status:
?
Key to Reviewer Statuses
VIEWHIDE
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation.
Reviewer Report30 May 2019
Felipe Mora-Bermúdez,
Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany; Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an
... Continue reading
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an
... Continue reading
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an
... Continue reading
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an
... Continue reading
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
Ewa K. Stachowiak, State University of New York, Buffalo, USA
Sebastian Jessberger, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Orly Reiner, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
Felipe Mora-Bermúdez, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany; Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations -
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Adjust parameters to alter display
View on desktop for interactive features
Includes Interactive Elements
View on desktop for interactive features
Competing Interests Policy
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests'
Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper.
You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors.
You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student).
You work at the same institute as any of the authors.
You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission.
You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published.
Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests'
You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements.
You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors.
You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on.
Stay Updated
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Comments on this article Comments (0)