Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41132688›Full record

ArticleNetwork neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025

Brain connectome from neuronal morphology.

Suhui Jin, Junle Li, Jinhui Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 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. Review
  2. Article
  3. Structural MRI of brain similarity networks.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2025
    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.

Suhui JinInstitute for Brain Research and Rehabilitation, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.
Junle LiInstitute for Brain Research and Rehabilitation, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.
Jinhui WangInstitute for Brain Research and Rehabilitation, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4900-3184

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Single-subject morphological brain networks derived from cross-feature correlation of macroscopic MRI-derived morphological measures provide an important means for studying the brain connectome. However, the validity of this approach remains to be confirmed at the microscopic level. Here, we constructed morphological brain networks at the single-cell level by extending features from macroscopic morphological measures to microscopic descriptions of neuronal morphology. We demonstrated the feasibility and generalizability of the method using neurons in the somatosensory cortex of a rat, neurons over the whole brain of a mouse, and neurons in the middle temporal gyrus (MTG) of a human. We found that interneuron morphological similarity was higher for intra- than interclass connections, depended on cytoarchitectonic, chemoarchitectonic, and laminar classification of neurons (rat), differed between regions with different evolutionary timelines (mouse), and correlated with neuronal axonal projections (mouse). Furthermore, highly connected hub neurons were disproportionately from superficial layers (rat), inhibitory neurons (rat), and subcortical regions (mouse), and exhibited unique morphology. Finally, we demonstrated a more segregated, less integrated, and economic network architecture with worse resistance to targeted attacks for neurons in human MTG than neurons in a mouse's primary visual cortex. Overall, our method provides an alternative avenue to study neuronal wiring diagrams in brains.

Indexed as

Brain networkComparative connectomicsGraph theoryHubNeural morphology

Identifiers

PMID41132688
PMCPMC12543300

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.