Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27013984›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroanatomy2016

Taxonomic Separation of Hippocampal Networks: Principal Cell Populations and Adult Neurogenesis.

R Maarten van Dijk, Shih-Hui Huang, Lutz Slomianka, Irmgard Amrein

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroanatomy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Voltage-Gated NaLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Sampling the Mouse Hippocampal Dentate Gyrus.Frontiers in neuroanatomy · 2017
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

R Maarten van DijkFunctional Neuroanatomy, Institute of Anatomy, University of ZürichZurich, Switzerland; Neuroscience Center Zurich, University of Zurich and ETH ZurichZürich, Switzerland; Department of Health Sciences and Technology, Institute of Human Movement Sciences and Sport, ETH ZurichZürich, Switzerland.
Shih-Hui HuangFunctional Neuroanatomy, Institute of Anatomy, University of ZürichZurich, Switzerland; Neuroscience Center Zurich, University of Zurich and ETH ZurichZürich, Switzerland; Department of Health Sciences and Technology, Institute of Human Movement Sciences and Sport, ETH ZurichZürich, Switzerland.
Lutz SlomiankaFunctional Neuroanatomy, Institute of Anatomy, University of Zürich Zurich, Switzerland.
Irmgard AmreinFunctional Neuroanatomy, Institute of Anatomy, University of ZürichZurich, Switzerland; Neuroscience Center Zurich, University of Zurich and ETH ZurichZürich, Switzerland.
ETH Zurich · CHUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While many differences in hippocampal anatomy have been described between species, it is typically not clear if they are specific to a particular species and related to functional requirements or if they are shared by species of larger taxonomic units. Without such information, it is difficult to infer how anatomical differences may impact on hippocampal function, because multiple taxonomic levels need to be considered to associate behavioral and anatomical changes. To provide information on anatomical changes within and across taxonomic ranks, we present a quantitative assessment of hippocampal principal cell populations in 20 species or strain groups, with emphasis on rodents, the taxonomic group that provides most animals used in laboratory research. Of special interest is the importance of adult hippocampal neurogenesis (AHN) in species-specific adaptations relative to other cell populations. Correspondence analysis of cell numbers shows that across taxonomic units, phylogenetically related species cluster together, sharing similar proportions of principal cell populations. CA3 and hilus are strong separators that place rodent species into a tight cluster based on their relatively large CA3 and small hilus while non-rodent species (including humans and non-human primates) are placed on the opposite side of the spectrum. Hilus and CA3 are also separators within rodents, with a very large CA3 and rather small hilar cell populations separating mole-rats from other rodents that, in turn, are separated from each other by smaller changes in the proportions of CA1 and granule cells. When adult neurogenesis is included, the relatively small populations of young neurons, proliferating cells and hilar neurons become main drivers of taxonomic separation within rodents. The observations provide challenges to the computational modeling of hippocampal function, suggest differences in the organization of hippocampal information streams in rodent and non-rodent species, and support emerging concepts of functional and structural interactions between CA3 and the dentate gyrus.

Indexed as

CA1CA3comparativecorrespondence analysishilusprimatesrodentstereology

Identifiers

PMID27013984
PMCPMC4783399
OpenAlexW2332370422

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.