Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25360087›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroanatomy2014

Homeostatic structural plasticity can account for topology changes following deafferentation and focal stroke.

Markus Butz, Ines D Steenbuck, Arjen van Ooyen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroanatomy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Network Plasticity as Bayesian Inference.PLoS computational biology · 2015
    Article
  15. Editorial: Quantitative Analysis of Neuroanatomy.Frontiers in neuroanatomy · 2015
    Article
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.

Markus ButzSimulation Lab Neuroscience - Bernstein Facility for Simulation and Database Technology, Institute for Advanced Simulation, Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, Forschungszentrum Jülich Jülich, Germany.
Ines D SteenbuckStudent of the Medical Faculty, University of Freiburg Freiburg, Germany.
Arjen van OoyenDepartment of Integrative Neurophysiology, VU University Amsterdam Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After brain lesions caused by tumors or stroke, or after lasting loss of input (deafferentation), inter- and intra-regional brain networks respond with complex changes in topology. Not only areas directly affected by the lesion but also regions remote from the lesion may alter their connectivity-a phenomenon known as diaschisis. Changes in network topology after brain lesions can lead to cognitive decline and increasing functional disability. However, the principles governing changes in network topology are poorly understood. Here, we investigated whether homeostatic structural plasticity can account for changes in network topology after deafferentation and brain lesions. Homeostatic structural plasticity postulates that neurons aim to maintain a desired level of electrical activity by deleting synapses when neuronal activity is too high and by providing new synaptic contacts when activity is too low. Using our Model of Structural Plasticity, we explored how local changes in connectivity induced by a focal loss of input affected global network topology. In accordance with experimental and clinical data, we found that after partial deafferentation, the network as a whole became more random, although it maintained its small-world topology, while deafferentated neurons increased their betweenness centrality as they rewired and returned to the homeostatic range of activity. Furthermore, deafferentated neurons increased their global but decreased their local efficiency and got longer tailed degree distributions, indicating the emergence of hub neurons. Together, our results suggest that homeostatic structural plasticity may be an important driving force for lesion-induced network reorganization and that the increase in betweenness centrality of deafferentated areas may hold as a biomarker for brain repair.

Indexed as

deafferentationepileptogenesisfocal retinal lesionhomeostatic plasticityneuronal network modelstrokestructural plasticitytopology

Identifiers

PMID25360087
PMCPMC4199279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.