ArticleResearch square2024
Establishing neuroanatomical correspondences across mouse and marmoset brain structures.
Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Interest in the common marmoset is growing due to evolutionarily proximity to humans compared to laboratory mice, necessitating a comparison of mouse and marmoset brain architectures, including connectivity and cell type distributions. Creating an actionable comparative platform is challenging since these brains have distinct spatial organizations and expert neuroanatomists disagree. We propose a general theoretical framework to relate named atlas compartments across taxa and use it to establish a detailed correspondence between marmoset and mice brains. Contrary to conventional wisdom that brain structures may be easier to relate at higher levels of the atlas hierarchy, we find that finer parcellations at the leaf levels offer greater reconcilability despite naming discrepancies. Utilizing existing atlases and associated literature, we created a list of leaf-level structures for both species and establish five types of correspondence between them. One-to-one relations were found between 43% of the structures in mouse and 47% in marmoset, whereas 25% of mouse and 10% of marmoset structures were not relatable. The remaining structures show a set of more complex mappings which we quantify. Implementing this correspondence with volumetric atlases of the two species, we make available a computational tool for querying and visualizing relationships between the corresponding brains. Our findings provide a foundation for computational comparative analyses of mesoscale connectivity and cell type distributions in the laboratory mouse and the common marmoset.
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.