ArticleScientific reports2017
Pitfalls of using confocal-microscopy based automated quantification of synaptic complexes in honeybee mushroom bodies (response to Peng and Yang 2016).
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- In Vivo Two-Photon Imaging of the Olfactory System in Insects.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Novel structure in the nuclei of honey bee brain neurons revealed by immunostaining.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Review
- Automated quantification of synaptic boutons reveals their 3D distribution in the honey bee mushroom body.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- The Neurophysiological Bases of the Impact of Neonicotinoid Pesticides on the Behaviour of Honeybees.Insects · 2019Review
- The Role of Celestial Compass Information inFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recent study by Peng and Yang in Scientific Reports using confocal-microscopy based automated quantification of anti-synapsin labeled microglomeruli in the mushroom bodies of honeybee brains reports potentially incorrect numbers of microglomerular densities. Whereas several previous studies using visually supervised or automated counts from confocal images and analyses of serial 3D electron-microscopy data reported consistent numbers of synaptic complexes per volume, Peng and Yang revealed extremely low numbers differing by a factor of 18 or more from those obtained in visually supervised counts, and by a factor 22-180 from numbers in two other studies using automated counts. This extreme discrepancy is especially disturbing as close comparison of raw confocal images of anti-synapsin labeled whole-mount brain preparations are highly similar across these studies. We conclude that these discrepancies may reside in potential misapplication of confocal imaging followed by erroneous use of automated image analysis software. Consequently, the reported microglomerular densities during maturation and after manipulation by insecticides require validation by application of appropriate confocal imaging methods and analyses tools that rely on skilled observers. We suggest several improvements towards more reliable or standardized automated or semi-automated synapse counts in whole mount preparations of insect brains.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.