ArticlePLoS computational biology2024
A biologically inspired repair mechanism for neuronal reconstructions with a focus on human dendrites.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mouse and human striatal projection neurons compared - somatodendritic arbor, spines and in silico analyses.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Investigating and modelling the functionality of human neurons remains challenging due to the technical limitations, resulting in scarce and incomplete 3D anatomical reconstructions. Here we used a morphological modelling approach based on optimal wiring to repair the parts of a dendritic morphology that were lost due to incomplete tissue samples. In Drosophila, where dendritic regrowth has been studied experimentally using laser ablation, we found that modelling the regrowth reproduced a bimodal distribution between regeneration of cut branches and invasion by neighbouring branches. Interestingly, our repair model followed growth rules similar to those for the generation of a new dendritic tree. To generalise the repair algorithm from Drosophila to mammalian neurons, we artificially sectioned reconstructed dendrites from mouse and human hippocampal pyramidal cell morphologies, and showed that the regrown dendrites were morphologically similar to the original ones. Furthermore, we were able to restore their electrophysiological functionality, as evidenced by the recovery of their firing behaviour. Importantly, we show that such repairs also apply to other neuron types including hippocampal granule cells and cerebellar Purkinje cells. We then extrapolated the repair to incomplete human CA1 pyramidal neurons, where the anatomical boundaries of the particular brain areas innervated by the neurons in question were known. Interestingly, the repair of incomplete human dendrites helped to simulate the recently observed increased synaptic thresholds for dendritic NMDA spikes in human versus mouse dendrites. To make the repair tool available to the neuroscience community, we have developed an intuitive and simple graphical user interface (GUI), which is available in the TREES toolbox (www.treestoolbox.org).
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.