Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42440829›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in computational neuroscience2026

Structured sampling of molecularly classified mossy fiber inputs by cerebellar granule cells.

Xiaomeng Han, Elif Sevde Meral, Jeff W Lichtman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Xiaomeng HanDepartment of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Elif Sevde MeralBezmialem Vakif University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Jeff W LichtmanDepartment of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The cerebellar granule cell layer receives mossy fiber inputs from diverse brain regions, yet the principles governing how individual granule cells sample distinct types of inputs remain poorly understood. Using a volumetric correlated light and electron microscopy (vCLEM) dataset from an adult female mouse cerebellum, in which VGluT1-positive and VGluT1-negative mossy fiber terminals are molecularly distinguished, we reconstructed granule cell and mossy fiber connectivity to examine input selection rules. To test whether connectivity can be explained by spatial proximity alone, we developed distance-limited random sampling null models based on empirical cell spatial arrangement, simulating adult and developmental sampling regimes. Granule cell-centered analyses showed that granule cells shared less innervation from the same mossy fiber than expected by chance, indicating that structured sampling cannot be explained by distance-constrained random connectivity alone. Moreover, subpopulations of granule cells preferentially sample either VGluT1-positive or VGluT1-negative mossy fibers. In contrast, mossy fiber-centered analysis showed that individual terminals distributed their outputs across granule cells in a pattern broadly consistent with random sampling. However, sampling in the adult model was more selective than in the model that reflects developmental processes. Together, our findings demonstrated structured, non-random sampling of cerebellar VGluT1-positive and VGluT1-negative mossy fiber inputs and provide insight into how granule cells integrate molecularly distinct inputs to support cerebellar computation.

Indexed as

cerebellumcomputational modelingconnectomicscorrelated light and electron microscopy (CLEM)granule cellmossy fiber terminalsynaptic input selectionVGLuT1

Identifiers

PMID42440829
PMCPMC13333720

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.