Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 695

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rods and cones in the mouse retina. I. Structural analysis using light and electron microscopy

Carter‐Dawson, Louvenia D., Lavail, Matthew M.·1979·Journal of Comparative Neurology

Abstract

Rods and cones of the C57BL/6J mouse retina have been examined by light and electron microscopy to distinguish the structural features of the two photoreceptor types. By light microscopy, cone nuclei are conspicuously different from rod nuclei in 1‐2 μm plastic sections. Cone nuclei have an irregularly shaped clump of heterochromatin that appears in single sections to be one to three clumps, whereas rod nuclei are more densely stained and have one large, central clump of heterochromatin. Cone nuclei make up approximately 3%; of the photoreceptor nuclei in both the central and peripheral retina at all ages examined up to 267 days. Cone nuclei are confined to the outer half of the outer nuclear layer, and more than 50%; of the cone nuclei lie adjacent to the outer limiting membrane. By electron microscopy, cones in the mouse retina meet virtually every morphological criterion of mammalian cones. The outer segments are conically shaped. Many, if not all of the outer segment discs are continuous with the outer plasma membrane, whereas almost all of the rod discs are not. Cone outer segments are only about half the length of the rod outer segments, and they are contacted by long, villous pigment epithelial cell processes. The cone inner segment diameter is greater than the outer segment diameter, and the accumulation of mitochondria present at the apical end of the inner segment forms a more conspicuous ellipsoid than in rods. The internal fiber or axon of the cone is larger in diameter than that of the rod, and it terminates in a large synaptic pedicle with multiple ribbon synapses, whereas the rod terminal is a smaller spherule with only a single ribbon synaptic complex.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cne.901880204

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 695

Metadata

Authors
Carter‐Dawson, L. D., & Lavail, M. M.
Venue
Journal of Comparative Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1979-11-15
Volume
188
Issue
2
Pages
245-262
ISSN
  • 0021-9967 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9861
OpenAlex
W2075365540
Cited by
695
References
4
FWCI
1.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Rods and cones in the mouse retina. I. Structural analysis using light and electron microscopy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cne.901880204
The paper
Carter‐Dawson, L. D., & Lavail, M. M. (1979). Rods and cones in the mouse retina. I. Structural analysis using light and electron microscopy. Journal of Comparative Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.901880204

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.