4.5 Review

How many neurons do you have? Some dogmas of quantitative neuroscience under revision

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 1-9

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07923.x

关键词

brain development; brain evolution; glial cell number; neuron number

资金

  1. Brazilian Council for the Development of Science and Technology (CNPq)
  2. Rio de Janeiro Foundation for Research (FAPERJ)
  3. Ministry of Education (CAPES-MEC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Owing to methodological shortcomings and a certain conservatism that consolidates wrong assumptions in the literature, some dogmas have become established and reproduced in papers and textbooks, derived from quantitative features of the brain. The first dogma states that the cerebral cortex is the pinnacle of brain evolution based on the observations that its volume is greater in more intelligent species, and that cortical surface area grows more than any other brain region, to reach the largest proportion in higher primates and humans. The second dogma claims that the human brain contains 100 billion neurons, plus 10-fold more glial cells. These round numbers have become widely adopted, although data provided by different authors have led to a broad range of 75125 billion neurons in the whole brain. The third dogma derives from the second, and states that our brain is structurally special, an outlier as compared with other primates. Being so large and convoluted, it is a special construct of nature, unrelated to evolutionary scaling. Finally, the fourth dogma appeared as a tentative explanation for the considerable growth of the brain throughout development and evolution being modular in structure, the brain (and particularly the cerebral cortex) grows by tangential addition of modules that are uniform in neuronal composition. In this review, we sought to examine and challenge these four dogmas, and propose other interpretations or simply their replacement with alternative views.

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