4.7 Article

Areal and laminar differentiation in the mouse neocortex using large scale gene expression data

期刊

METHODS
卷 50, 期 2, 页码 113-121

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2009.09.005

关键词

Gene expression; In situ hybridization; Clustering; Visualization; Cortical organization; Functional organization

资金

  1. Allen Institute for Brain Science
  2. Allen Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although cytoarchitectonic organization of the mammalian cortex into different lamina has been well-studied, identifying the architectural differences that distinguish cortical areas from one another is more challenging. Localization of large anatomical structures is possible using magnetic resonance imaging or invasive techniques (such as anterograde or retrograde tracing), but identifying patterns in gene expression architecture is limited as gene products do not necessarily identify an immediate functional consequence of a specialized area. Expression of specific genes in the mouse and human cortex is most often identified across entire lamina, and areal patterning of expression (when it exists) is most easily differentiated on a layer-by-layer basis. Since cortical organization is defined by the expression of large sets of genes, the task of identifying individual (or groups Of Structures) cannot be done using individual areal markers. In this manuscript we describe a methodology for clustering gene expression correlation profiles in the C57Bl/6J mouse cortex to identify large-scale genetic relationships between layers and areas. By using the Anatomic Gene Expression Atlas (http://mouse.brain-map.org/agea/) derived from in situ hybridization data in the Allen Brain Atlas, we show that a consistent expression based organization of areal patterning in the mouse cortex exists when clustered on a laminar basis. Surface-based mapping and visualization techniques are used as a representation to clarify these relationships. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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