Genetic Activity Marks Difference between Brains of Humans and Chimps

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Humans and chimpanzees reportedly share 98.7 percent of the same DNA, but differ greatly in appearance, behavior, and ability. Now scientists may have discovered why this is. According to a report published in the current issue of the journal Science, there is more genetic activity in the human brain than there is in the chimpanzee brain. Although there is little difference in the structure of the underlying genes, what they can produce varies substantially, scientists say. The findings suggest that this acceleration of gene expression¿the rate at which a gene generates the messenger RNA and proteins that carry out its orders¿ could be the most significant change to occur during the evolution of humans from simpler primates. The study found that gene expression levels evolved 5.5 times faster in humans than in chimps. The identification of such differences between humans and our closest living relatives, the researchers note, could explain why humans are susceptible to some diseases that chimpanzees can resist.

Svante P¿¿bo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany and colleagues compared the expression levels of genes in tissue and blood samples from humans and several primate relatives: chimpanzees, orangutans and rhesus macaque monkeys. The scientists isolated RNA from each sample and used two techniques to study how this genetic material interacted with a collection of nearly 18,000 human genes. As expected, expression patterns in humans and chimpanzees were similar in the liver and blood samples. Brain tissue, in contrast, showed significant differences among the groups. Expression levels in chimpanzees and other primates remained within the same range, but the human samples registered much more activity. According to the group, these results indicate that the rate of evolutionary change of genetic activity in the brain is more pronounced in humans than in chimpanzees.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The next step, P¿¿bo says, is to isolate the genes that have changed between chimps and humans and to analyze them in greater detail. This could lead to a better understanding of why chimpanzees resist diseases such as AIDS, Alzheimer's, cancer and malaria. With this approach, co-author Ajit Varki of the University of California, San Diego, notes, "we may be able to learn more about the genetics underlying diseases that seem to harm humans but not chimpanzees."

Ask the Experts: How closely related are humans to apes and other animals?

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe