4.6 Article

Systematic, Cross-Cortex Variation in Neuron Numbers in Rodents and Primates

Journal

CEREBRAL CORTEX
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages 147-160

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bht214

Keywords

cortex; development; gradient; numbers

Categories

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation/Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico [910149/96-99]
  2. National Science Foundation [IBN-0138113, CCF-0835706]
  3. NIH [F32HD0 67011]
  4. National University of Ireland Traveling Studentship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Uniformity, local variability, and systematic variation in neuron numbers per unit of cortical surface area across species and cortical areas have been claimed to characterize the isocortex. Resolving these claims has been difficult, because species, techniques, and cortical areas vary across studies. We present a stereological assessment of neuron numbers in layers II-IV and V-VI per unit of cortical surface area across the isocortex in rodents (hamster, Mesocricetus auratus; agouti, Dasyprocta azarae; paca, Cuniculus paca) and primates (owl monkey, Aotus trivigratus; tamarin, Saguinus midas; capuchin, Cebus apella); these chosen to vary systematically in cortical size. The contributions of species, cortical areas, and techniques (stereology, isotropic fractionator) to neuron estimates were assessed. Neurons per unit of cortical surface area increase across the rostro-caudal (RC) axis in primates (varying by a factor of 1.64-2.13 across the rostral and caudal poles) but less in rodents (varying by a factor of 1.15-1.54). Layer II-IV neurons account for most of this variation. When integrated into the context of species variation, and this RC gradient in neuron numbers, conflicts between studies can be accounted for. The RC variation in isocortical neurons in adulthood mirrors the gradients in neurogenesis duration in development.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available