Talk:FOXP2

2006 discussions

The link to www.timesonline.co.uk appears to be broken.

D. F. Newbury, E. Bonora, J. A. Lamb, S. E. Fisher, C. S. L. Lai, G. Baird, L. Jannoun, V. Slonims, C. M. Stott, M. J. Merricks, P. F. Bolton, A. J. Bailey, A. P. Monaco (2002) "FOXP2 Is Not a Major Susceptibility Gene for Autism or Specific Language Impairment" in American Journal of Human Genetics.

In the absence of any mutation or association evidence to suggest otherwise, we must therefore conclude that FOXP2 is unlikely to play a major role in the onset of autism or SLI.

I think FOXP2 is the name of a particular a locus not a gene. To call it a gene is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.31.3 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 5 May 2006

From the NCBI Genbank database, "This gene encodes an evolutionarily conserved transcription factor expressed in fetal and adult brain. This transcription factor is a member of the forkhead/winged-helix (FOX) family of transcription factors, and contains a FOX DNA-binding domain and a large polyglutamine tract. Members of the FOX family of transcription factors are regulators of embryogenesis. The product of this gene is thought to be required for proper development of speech and language regions of the brain during embryogenesis. Although a point mutation in this gene has been associated with the KE pedigree segregating developmental verbal dyspraxia, no association between mutations in this gene and another speech disorder, autism, has been found. Four alternative transcripts encoding three different isoforms have been identified." Braingrind 00:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Development as morphogenesis vs. evolution

I don't think FOXP2's role in the evolution of language has been firmly established yet. FOXP2's protein sequence has had very few mutations across species and those that have occurred don't associate well with species that have learned vocalizations (humans, songbirds, certain marine mammals such as dolphins and whales, etc.). It is possible that the evolutionary shift to language wasn't a result of changes in the FOXP2 protein sequence but changes in the regulation of the FOXP2 protein. But so far a number of studies looking at FOXP2 expression patterns in the developing brains of diverse animals such as humans, mice, zebra finch, and zebrafish haven't shown many differences. So even brain expression patterns seem to be very conserved.

The jury is still out, but I would be more comfortable saying FOXP2 is involved in the development (morphogenesis) of structures necessary for language. Based on the developmental verbal dyspraxia phenotype in the KE family, this is hard to argue against. Even if FOXP2 wasn't involved in the evolution of language, it is definitely necessary for language. Forluvoft 17:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Neanderthals have the exact same FOXP2 as modern humans raises the question, did modern humans have the same FOXP2 before they encountered Neanderthals? I would like to see a comment in the main article giving the earliest known human fossil DNA exhibiting this exact version of FOXP2. Olan7allen (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The neanderthal DNA is the earliest DNA where the modern human FOXP2 gene has been identified. While Paabo et. al. were very polite about it, this finding pretty much proves that the modern human version of FOXP2 evolved before the neanderthals and the humans split. That in turn implies that earlier estimates on the date of the modern human FOXP2 gene were wrong, or, less likely, that neanderthals and humans were not genetically isolated. I'm not sure how to reflect that in the text.Warren Dew (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The concern that FOXP2 does not have an established role in language evolution is genuine. However, the mutation in FOXP2 that results in this phenotype is minor (arginine to histidine) and its affects appear to be limited DNA binding. Unlike the related FOXP3 that functions in immune development, other disease related mutations in FOXP2 have not been observed, suggesting that more severe mutations in FOXP2 are either lethal or have mostly inconsequential developmental affects. Considering the importance of the other forkhead proteins in development, it will likely be the former. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.87.138 (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a "language gene"

The lede of this article currently misrepresents FOXP2 as being a language gene, and does so using only a single 9-year-old study. (Yes, I know it uses the somewhat neutral language "implicated", implying that it's just some people who are making that connection and that the connection may not be right...but it should probably be more clear than that.) The idea that FOXP2 is "the language gene" has been drummed up by popular media and science reporting, but as far as I know real scientists don't take that claim seriously, just like they no longer believe Broca's area is "the language area" in the brain. I don't have any journal articles to cite because I'm not very familiar with this literature, but here are a few other things:

• Liberman, Mark (4 June 2009). "Mice with the "language gene" stay mum". Language Log. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1478. Retrieved 6 June 2009. 
• Pullum, Geoffrey K. (5 September 2005). "The continuing misrepresentation of FOXP2 effects". Language Log. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002456.html. Retrieved 6 June 2009. 
• MacAndrew, Alec (1 March 2003). "FOXP2 and the Evolution of Language". Evolution Pages. http://www.evolutionpages.com/FOXP2_language.htm. Retrieved 6 June 2009. 

Also, the most recent study on this is pretty underwhelming, although of course it can be interpreted in different ways (naturally, the NYT piece exaggerated the findings, par for the course in science reporting0.

Anyway, I don't have the expertise to make any major changes to this article, but I do think someone who has been involved here should consider rewriting at least the language bits of the article to avoid giving readers the wrong impression. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

German wikipedia

Pictures from the excellent German Wikipedia article should be used in this article as well. --Rajah (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)