children reading

(Photo by Anastasia Shuraeva)

Study Shows Why Problems With Reading Trace Back To The Earliest Vertebrate Brains

In A Nutshell

  • Ancient origins: Genes linked to dyslexia date back over 430 million years to early vertebrates: they’re not recent evolutionary innovations
  • Recycled brain circuits: Humans don’t have specialized “reading genes,” we repurposed ancient neural systems designed for other tasks
  • Two developmental windows: These genes work in distinct phases before and after 24 weeks of fetal development, potentially explaining different types of reading difficulties
  • Shared biology: The same genes affect multiple brain functions, which is why dyslexia often appears alongside other learning differences

When a child struggles to read, specialists often start talking about genetics. For parents, this can bring to mind modern genetic mutations, perhaps something that emerged as humans evolved language. However, after 40 years of research, scientists have uncovered the genes associated with dyslexia are ancient. Some trace back over 430 million years to the earliest bony vertebrates, the ancestors we share with fish.

This shouldn’t make sense. Reading was invented roughly 5,000 years old. How can genes shared with ancient aquatic creatures be linked to problems with a skill humans only recently invented?

Pavel Dobrynin and Elena L. Grigorenko of the University of Houston led a team that systematically reviewed English-language publications on reading disability genetics from 1983 to 2023. They compiled 175 genes and traced their evolutionary origins. The results revealed these genes show strong evolutionary conservation, particularly at two pivotal points in animal evolution: when organisms first developed bilateral symmetry and complex nervous systems (Bilateria) and when bony vertebrates emerged (Euteleostomi). Evolution has actively preserved these genes through negative selection, eliminating mutations because the genes are so fundamental to survival.

The Recycled Brain

The human brain doesn’t have specialized circuits for reading because reading appeared too recently (in evolutionary terms) for natural selection to build them. Instead, your brain repurposed existing systems originally designed for pattern recognition, sequencing, and memory. Scientists call this the “neuronal recycling hypothesis.”

Those ancient genes build the basic neural infrastructure, or how brain cells connect, navigate to their targets during development, and communicate with each other. In early vertebrates, these genes created nervous systems for processing sensory information and coordinating movement. In humans, the same genes work within a vastly larger, more elaborate brain structure. Reading emerges when these ancient mechanisms operate in the expanded workspace of the human cortex.

When variation occurs in how these genes function or are regulated, it can disrupt fundamental brain processes. The result can include difficulty with reading, but it’s not because “reading genes” are broken. It’s because general-purpose neural systems (systems that do many jobs) aren’t working optimally for this specific task.

Brother reading books together
After searching for decades, scientists have yet to find ‘reading genes.’ (Credit: pexels.com)

Two Developmental Phases

The research, published in the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, revealed something potentially informative for future clinical research: these genes operate in two distinct phases during brain development, with a clear switch at 24 weeks after conception.

Before 24 weeks, 68 genes focus on construction. That means building brain structure, laying down neural pathways, and establishing the physical architecture. After 24 weeks, a different cluster of 58 genes takes over, fine-tuning how brain cells communicate with each other.

This pattern suggests, though doesn’t yet prove, that reading difficulties might trace to disruptions at different developmental stages. Early variations might affect the brain’s physical wiring. Later ones might impact how efficiently that wiring operates. If confirmed, different underlying biology could eventually inform different intervention approaches, though no such pathways have been established yet.

The MECP2 Connection

Researchers were surprised to discover many of these reading disability genes appear together in enrichment analyses with MECP2, a gene that causes Rett syndrome when severely mutated. Rett syndrome, which primarily affects girls, includes reading difficulties among many severe symptoms.

MECP2 regulates gene expression throughout the brain, coordinating general neural pathways rather than reading-specific ones. Its activity surges around 24 weeks of fetal development. The enrichment analysis suggests that variations in MECP2 or in genes it regulates might be part of shared biological pathways affecting reading development, though the exact mechanisms remain unclear.

This connection helps explain why reading difficulties often appear alongside other learning differences. They may involve disruptions to fundamental neural processes that affect multiple capabilities.

Why Only Humans Read

If these genes are ancient and shared across species, why can’t other animals read? The genes are similar, but the brain architecture is different.

Nonhuman primates share many of these genes with humans but lack the cortical architecture that supports reading. Recent human evolution dramatically expanded the cortex, particularly language regions. That expansion created the neural real estate where ancient genetic programs could support new capabilities like reading.

The genes are old. The brain structure they operate within is relatively new. The combination produces the ability to decode arbitrary symbols into meaning.

What This Means for Your Family

For families dealing with dyslexia, this research reframes what’s happening. Reading disabilities aren’t failures of specialized systems because no specialized reading systems exist. They reflect variation in ancient, fundamental neural processes that happen to matter enormously for a culturally invented skill.

This explains why dyslexia appears differently across children and often comes packaged with other learning differences. One child’s difficulty might involve how neurons found their targets during early development. Another’s might reflect differences in how neural circuits strengthen through practice. Both struggle with reading, but the underlying biology differs.

While these are deeply embedded systems, and not easily modified, understanding the actual mechanisms opens realistic paths for intervention.

As a longer-term possibility (not a near-term expectation) genetic profiling might eventually help identify which processes are affected in individual children, potentially informing more targeted support.

The Bottom Line

After searching for four decades, scientists haven’t found “reading genes.” They’ve found something more interesting: ancient neural machinery that humans conscripted for a brand-new purpose. Dyslexia doesn’t reflect broken reading systems, it reflects variation in fundamental brain processes encountering an evolutionary challenge our DNA never prepared us to meet.

The genes associated with childhood reading difficulties are part of our shared evolutionary heritage with ancient vertebrates. That seems absurd until you realize it reveals something profound. Reading is a feat of biological improvisation, not evolutionary design. We do it with borrowed parts, and sometimes those parts don’t fit the new job perfectly.


Disclaimer: This article is based on peer-reviewed scientific research and is intended for informational purposes only. It should not be used as a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. If you have concerns about your child’s reading development, please consult with qualified healthcare providers or educational specialists.


Paper Notes

Study Limitations

The literature review focused on English-language publications from 1983 to 2023, potentially missing relevant genes reported in other languages or more recent research. The evolutionary analyses used available reference genomes representing a limited fraction of species diversity. The transcriptomic analyses relied on publicly available datasets from the Allen Brain Atlas, which primarily contains data from neurotypical individuals. The single-cell RNA sequencing analysis was restricted to adult brain tissue, preventing direct examination during critical developmental periods for reading acquisition. The study examined associations between genes and reading disabilities but cannot establish direct causal relationships.

Funding and Disclosures

Pavel Dobrynin and Elena L. Grigorenko were supported by the Texas Center for Learning Disabilities (Grant P50HD052117). Marina Norkina was supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (Agreement 075-10-2021-093, Project COG-RND-2138). Anna Zhuk was supported by Saint-Petersburg State University (Project No. 125021902561-6). The authors declared no competing financial or nonfinancial interests existed at the time of publication.

Publication Details

Title: Four Decades of Inquiry Into the Genetic Bases of Specific Reading Disability | Authors: Pavel Dobrynin, Yi Zeng, Marina Norkina, Alina Fedorova, Anna Zhuk, and Elena L. Grigorenko | Journal: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research | Volume/Pages: Vol. 68, pages 5158-5173 | Publication Date: November 2025 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_JSLHR-25-00050

About StudyFinds Analysis

Called "brilliant," "fantastic," and "spot on" by scientists and researchers, our acclaimed StudyFinds Analysis articles are created using an exclusive AI-based model with complete human oversight by the StudyFinds Editorial Team. For these articles, we use an unparalleled LLM process across multiple systems to analyze entire journal papers, extract data, and create accurate, accessible content. Our writing and editing team proofreads and polishes each and every article before publishing. With recent studies showing that artificial intelligence can interpret scientific research as well as (or even better) than field experts and specialists, StudyFinds was among the earliest to adopt and test this technology before approving its widespread use on our site. We stand by our practice and continuously update our processes to ensure the very highest level of accuracy. Read our AI Policy (link below) for more information.

Our Editorial Process

StudyFinds publishes digestible, agenda-free, transparent research summaries that are intended to inform the reader as well as stir civil, educated debate. We do not agree nor disagree with any of the studies we post, rather, we encourage our readers to debate the veracity of the findings themselves. All articles published on StudyFinds are vetted by our editors prior to publication and include links back to the source or corresponding journal article, if possible.

Our Editorial Team

Steve Fink

Editor-in-Chief

John Anderer

Associate Editor

Leave a Reply