4.8 Article

Whole-brain comparison of rodent and human brains using spatial transcriptomics

期刊

ELIFE
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

eLIFE SCIENCES PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.79418

关键词

comparative neuroanatomy; translational neuroscience; neuroinformatics; Human; Mouse

类别

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [GSD-165737, FSS-167844]
  2. Wellcome Trust [203139/Z/16/Z]
  3. University of Oxford
  4. National Institutes of Health [5R01HD100298]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Researchers use a common reference space approach to evaluate the similarity between mouse and human brain, finding that mouse-human homologous genes can capture general patterns of neuroanatomical organization. By using a supervised machine learning approach, the resolution of cross-species correspondences can be improved.
The ever-increasing use of mouse models in preclinical neuroscience research calls for an improvement in the methods used to translate findings between mouse and human brains. Previously, we showed that the brains of primates can be compared in a direct quantitative manner using a common reference space built from white matter tractography data (Mars et al., 2018b). Here, we extend the common space approach to evaluate the similarity of mouse and human brain regions using openly accessible brain-wide transcriptomic data sets. We show that mouse-human homologous genes capture broad patterns of neuroanatomical organization, but the resolution of cross-species correspondences can be improved using a novel supervised machine learning approach. Using this method, we demonstrate that sensorimotor subdivisions of the neocortex exhibit greater similarity between species, compared with supramodal subdivisions, and mouse isocortical regions separate into sensorimotor and supramodal clusters based on their similarity to human cortical regions. We also find that mouse and human striatal regions are strongly conserved, with the mouse caudoputamen exhibiting an equal degree of similarity to both the human caudate and putamen.

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

4.8
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