Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30419013›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2018

Visual physiology of the layer 4 cortical circuit in silico.

Anton Arkhipov, Nathan W Gouwens, Yazan N Billeh, Sergey Gratiy, Ramakrishnan Iyer, Ziqiang Wei, Zihao Xu, Reza Abbasi-Asl, Jim Berg, Michael Buice and 20 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Multi-scale spiking network model of human cerebral cortex.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Computational Concepts for Reconstructing and Simulating Brain Tissue.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022
    Article
  20. An Anatomically Constrained Model of V1 Simple Cells Predicts the Coexistence of Push-Pull and Broad Inhibition.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2021
    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

30 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Anton ArkhipovAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1106-8310
Nathan W GouwensAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8429-4090
Yazan N BillehAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5200-4992
Sergey GratiyAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8911-2321
Ramakrishnan IyerAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Ziqiang WeiJanelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, Virginia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8694-1260
Zihao XuUniversity of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States of America.
Reza Abbasi-AslAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7824-4628
Jim BergAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Michael BuiceAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Nicholas CainAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5848-199X
Nuno da CostaAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Saskia de VriesAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3704-3499
Daniel DenmanAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Severine DurandAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
David FengAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Tim JarskyAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Jérôme LecoqAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Brian LeeAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Lu LiAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Stefan MihalasAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Gabriel K OckerAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9627-9576
Shawn R OlsenAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
R Clay ReidAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Gilberto Soler-LlavinaNovartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Cambridge, MA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1838-401X
Staci A SorensenAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Quanxin WangAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Jack WatersAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Massimo ScanzianiHoward Hughes Medical Institute and Department of Physiology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Christof KochAllen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Allen Institute for Brain Science · USHoward Hughes Medical Institute · USNovartis (United States) · USUniversity of California San Diego · US

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite advances in experimental techniques and accumulation of large datasets concerning the composition and properties of the cortex, quantitative modeling of cortical circuits under in-vivo-like conditions remains challenging. Here we report and publicly release a biophysically detailed circuit model of layer 4 in the mouse primary visual cortex, receiving thalamo-cortical visual inputs. The 45,000-neuron model was subjected to a battery of visual stimuli, and results were compared to published work and new in vivo experiments. Simulations reproduced a variety of observations, including effects of optogenetic perturbations. Critical to the agreement between responses in silico and in vivo were the rules of functional synaptic connectivity between neurons. Interestingly, after extreme simplification the model still performed satisfactorily on many measurements, although quantitative agreement with experiments suffered. These results emphasize the importance of functional rules of cortical wiring and enable a next generation of data-driven models of in vivo neural activity and computations.

Indexed as

AnimalsComputer SimulationMiceModels, NeurologicalNeuronsSynapsesThalamusVisual Cortex

Identifiers

PMID30419013
PMCPMC6258373
OpenAlexW2950958538

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.