4.5 Article

The Cellular Composition of the Marsupial Neocortex

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE NEUROLOGY
卷 522, 期 10, 页码 2286-2298

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cne.23534

关键词

evolution; Monodelphis; isotropic fractionation

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [F32 NS064792, R21 NS071225, R01 EY022987, T32 EY015387]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the current investigation we examined the number and proportion of neuronal and non-neuronal cells in the primary sensory areas of the neocortex of a South American marsupial, the short-tailed opossum (Monodelphis domestica). The primary somatosensory (S1), auditory (A1), and visual (V1) areas were dissected from the cortical sheet and compared with each other and the remaining neocortex using the isotropic fractionator technique. We found that although the overall sizes of V1, S1, A1, and the remaining cortical regions differed from each other, these divisions of the neocortex contained the same number of neurons, but the remaining cortex contained significantly more non-neurons than the primary sensory regions. In addition, the percent of neurons was higher in A1 than in the remaining cortex and the cortex as a whole. These results are similar to those seen in non-human primates. Furthermore, these results indicate that in some respects, such as number of neurons, the neocortex is homogenous across its extent, whereas in other aspects of organization, such as non-neuronal number and percentage of neurons, there is non-uniformity. Whereas the overall pattern of neuronal distribution is similar between short-tailed opossums and eutherian mammals, short-tailed opossum have a much lower cellular and neuronal density than other eutherian mammals. This suggests that the high neuronal density cortices of mammals such as rodents and primates may be a more recently evolved characteristic that is restricted to eutherians, and likely contributes to the complex behaviors we see in modern mammals. J. Comp. Neurol. 522:2286-2298, 2014. (c) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据