Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19675296›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2009

Anatomical and electrophysiological comparison of CA1 pyramidal neurons of the rat and mouse.

Brandy N Routh, Daniel Johnston, Kristen Harris, Raymond A Chitwood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

65 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. KThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Brandy N RouthCenter for Learning and Memory, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station, Austin, Texas 78712, USA. randy@mail.clm.utexas.edu
Daniel Johnston
Kristen Harris
Raymond A Chitwood

Funding

Regulation of Neuronal Excitability (P01)P01NS037444 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN · PI JOHNSTON, DANIEL · 1999 to 2008
$8.4M
CELLULAR INFORMATION PROCESSING IN THE HIPPOCAMPUSR01MH048432 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN · PI JOHNSTON, DANIEL · 1991 to 2012
$3.8M
PHARMACOLOGY OF MOSSY FIBER SYNAPTIC PLASTICITYR37MH044754 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN · PI JOHNSTON, DANIEL · 1989 to 2008
$3.2M
NIMH NIH HHS MH-44754NIMH NIH HHS MH-48432NINDS NIH HHS NS-37444
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study of learning and memory at the single-neuron level has relied on the use of many animal models, most notably rodents. Although many physiological and anatomical studies have been carried out in rats, the advent of genetically engineered mice has necessitated the comparison of new results in mice to established results from rats. Here we compare fundamental physiological and morphological properties and create three-dimensional compartmental models of identified hippocampal CA1 pyramidal neurons of one strain of rat, Sprague-Dawley, and two strains of mice, C57BL/6 and 129/SvEv. We report several differences in neuronal physiology and anatomy among the three animal groups, the most notable being that neurons of the 129/SvEv mice, but not the C57BL/6 mice, have higher input resistance, lower dendritic surface area, and smaller spines than those of rats. A surprising species-specific difference in membrane resonance indicates that both mouse strains have lower levels of the hyperpolarization-activated nonspecific cation current I(h). Simulations suggest that differences in I(h) kinetics rather than maximal conductance account for the lower resonance. Our findings indicate that comparisons of data obtained across strains or species will need to account for these and potentially other physiological and anatomical differences.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalAnimalsCA1 Region, HippocampalComputer SimulationDendritesDendritic SpinesElectric ImpedanceIn Vitro TechniquesKineticsMaleMembrane PotentialsMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMice, Inbred StrainsNeuronsPatch-Clamp Techniques

Identifiers

PMID19675296
PMCPMC2775381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.