Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39994473›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Neuroscience2025

Three systems of circuit formation: assembly, updating and tuning.

Dániel L Barabási, André Ferreira Castro, Florian Engert

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

3 authors.

Dániel L BarabásiEric and Wendy Schmidt Center, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA. danielbarabasi@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6015-7534
André Ferreira CastroNeurobiology Division, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, UK.
Florian EngertDepartment of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA. florian@mcb.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8169-2990

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the relationship between genotype and neuronal circuit phenotype necessitates an integrated view of genetics, development, plasticity and learning. Challenging the prevailing notion that emphasizes learning and plasticity as primary drivers of circuit assembly, in this Perspective, we delineate a tripartite framework to clarify the respective roles that learning and plasticity might have in this process. In the first part of the framework, which we term System One, neural circuits are established purely through genetically driven algorithms, in which spike timing-dependent plasticity serves no instructive role. We propose that these circuits equip the animal with sufficient skill and knowledge to successfully engage the world. Next, System Two is governed by rare but critical 'single-shot learning' events, which occur in response to survival situations and prompt rapid synaptic reconfiguration. Such events serve as crucial updates to the existing hardwired knowledge base of an organism. Finally, System Three is characterized by a perpetual state of synaptic recalibration, involving continual plasticity for circuit stabilization and fine-tuning. By outlining the definitions and roles of these three core systems, our framework aims to resolve existing ambiguities related to and enrich our understanding of neural circuit formation.

Indexed as

LearningModels, NeurologicalNerve NetNeuronal PlasticityNeuronsAnimalsHumansSynapses

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.