ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Mouse and human striatal projection neurons compared - somatodendritic arbor, spines and in silico analyses.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Dysfunction of the basal ganglia is implicated in a wide range of neurological and psychiatric disorders. Our understanding of the operation of the basal ganglia is largely derived on data from studies conducted on mice, which are frequently used as model organisms for various clinical conditions. The striatum, the largest compartment of the basal ganglia, consists of 90-95% striatal projection neurons (SPNs). It is therefore crucial to establish if human and mouse SPNs have distinct or similar properties, as this has implications for the relevance of mouse models for understanding the human striatum. To address this, we compared the general organization of the somato-dendritic tree of SPNs, the dimensions of the dendrites, the density and size of spines (spine surface area), and ion channel subtypes in human and mouse SPNs. Our findings reveal that human SPNs are significantly larger, but otherwise the organisation of the dendritic tree (dendrogram) with an average of approximately 5 primary dendrites, is similar in both species. Additionally in both humans and mice, over 90% of the spines are located on the terminal branches of each dendrite. Human spines are somewhat larger (4.3 versus 3.1 μm2) and the terminal dendrites have a uniform diameter in both humans and mice, although somewhat broader in the latter (1.0 versus 0.6 μm). The composition of ion channels is also largely conserved. These data have been used to simulate human SPNs building on our previous detailed simulation of mouse SPNs. We conclude that the human SPNs essentially appear as enlarged versions of the mouse SPNs. This similarity suggests that both species process information in a comparable manner, supporting the relevance of mouse models for studying the human striatum.
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.