Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21849538›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2011

Cellular-resolution population imaging reveals robust sparse coding in the Drosophila mushroom body.

Kyle S Honegger, Robert A A Campbell, Glenn C Turner

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 140 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
140citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

140 citing papers in PubMed, 275 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. What could evolve in the evolution of memory?Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Future avenues inLearning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.) · 2024
    Review
  20. Article

80 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kyle S HoneggerCold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York 11724, USA.
Robert A A Campbell
Glenn C Turner
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory · US

Funding

CSHL Watson School of Biological SciencesT32GM065094 · NIGMS · COLD SPRING HARBOR LABORATORY · PI GANN, ALEXANDER · 2002 to 2021
$4.8M
Electrophysiological Analysis of Olfactory Representations in DrosophilaR01DC010403 · NIDCD · COLD SPRING HARBOR LABORATORY · PI ALBEANU, DINU FLORENTIN · 2010 to 2016
$3.1M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC010403NIGMS NIH HHS 5T32GM065094NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM065094
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sensory stimuli are represented in the brain by the activity of populations of neurons. In most biological systems, studying population coding is challenging since only a tiny proportion of cells can be recorded simultaneously. Here we used two-photon imaging to record neural activity in the relatively simple Drosophila mushroom body (MB), an area involved in olfactory learning and memory. Using the highly sensitive calcium indicator GCaMP3, we simultaneously monitored the activity of >100 MB neurons in vivo (∼5% of the total population). The MB is thought to encode odors in sparse patterns of activity, but the code has yet to be explored either on a population level or with a wide variety of stimuli. We therefore imaged responses to odors chosen to evaluate the robustness of sparse representations. Different odors activated distinct patterns of MB neurons; however, we found no evidence for spatial organization of neurons by either response probability or odor tuning within the cell body layer. The degree of sparseness was consistent across a wide range of stimuli, from monomolecular odors to artificial blends and even complex natural smells. Sparseness was mainly invariant across concentrations, largely because of the influence of recent odor experience. Finally, in contrast to sensory processing in other systems, no response features distinguished natural stimuli from monomolecular odors. Our results indicate that the fundamental feature of odor processing in the MB is to create sparse stimulus representations in a format that facilitates arbitrary associations between odor and punishment or reward.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnimals, Genetically ModifiedDiagnostic ImagingDrosophilaMicroscopy, Fluorescence, MultiphotonMushroom BodiesOdorantsOlfactory PathwaysOlfactory Receptor NeuronsRandom AllocationSmell

Identifiers

PMID21849538
PMCPMC3180869
OpenAlexW1991915036

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.